1. Petition for license for nuclear fission technology — Challenge to restrictions on private entity involvement in nuclear power licensing under Atomic Energy Act 1962. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 791
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRCHUD, C.J., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sandeep T.S. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).564 of 2024
Decided on : 17-09-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tomy Chacko, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tomy Chacko, AOR
The court established that the regulatory framework of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 is justified in its aim to safeguard public welfare and prevent misuse of atomic energy.
Headnote:
LICENSE - ATOMIC ENERGY ACT - The court upheld the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962, emphasizing that the restrictions on private entities in licensing for nuclear power serve a public purpose, ensuring the safe and controlled use of atomic energy in India. The court interpreted Section 14 as a necessary measure to prevent misuse and accidents, concluding that these provisions do not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian physicist residing in the US, sought a license for his technology aimed at clean energy production through nuclear fission, claiming that the Atomic Energy Act 1962 restricts private involvement in nuclear power licensing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962, particularly Section 14, are designed to ensure public safety and control over atomic energy, and do not infringe upon the petitioner's fundamental rights.
Issues: Whether the restrictions imposed by the Atomic Energy Act 1962 on private entities seeking licenses for nuclear power are arbitrary and violate fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act serve a salutary public purpose, ensuring the safe and controlled use of atomic energy, and are not arbitrary in nature.
Result: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no grounds to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 unduly restrict private entities from obtaining licenses for nuclear power production. (Para 2 )
3. The Atomic Energy Act 1962 serves a salutary public purpose, ensuring calibrated exploitation of atomic power with stringent safeguards against misuse or accidents. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Statutory restrictions on licensing nuclear power plants to government entities are not arbitrary and do not violate fundamental rights given the risks associated with atomic energy. (Para 5 )
5. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Can private entities be granted licenses for nuclear power plants under the Atomic Energy Act 1962?
No, Section 14(1A) of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 restricts the granting of licenses for plants designed for the production, development, and use of atomic energy to government departments, authorities, institutions, corporations, or government companies. (Para 3 )
7. Are the restrictions on private sector involvement in nuclear energy licensing under the Atomic Energy Act 1962 considered arbitrary?
No, the court held that these provisions are not arbitrary as they serve a salutary public purpose, ensuring calibrated exploitation of atomic power subject to stringent safeguards to prevent misuse or accidents. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Do the licensing restrictions in the Atomic Energy Act 1962 violate fundamental rights?
No, the court found that the provisions designed for the control and use of atomic energy for public welfare and peaceful purposes do not interfere with fundamental rights. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who is a Physicist and an Indian citizen residing in the US, seeks a license for his technology which he states is designed to trigger nuclear fission for clean energy production minimizing radioactive waste as compared to traditional fusion reactors.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 19621[“1962 Act”] unduly restrict the involvement of private entities in licensing for nuclear power.
3. Section 14 of the 1962 Act, insofar as it is relevant, is in the following terms:
“(1) The Central Government may, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, by order prohibit except under a licence granted by it--
(i) the working of any mine or minerals specified in the order, being a mine or minerals from which in the opinion of the Central Government any of the prescribed substances can be obtained;
(ii) the acquisition, production, possession, use, disposal, export or import
(a) of any of the prescribed substances; or
(b) of any minerals or other substances specified in the rules, from which in the opinion of the Central Government any of the prescribed substances can be obtained; or
(c) of any plant designed or adopted or manufactured for the production, development and use of atomic energy or for research into matters connected therewith; or
(d) of any prescribed equipment.
(1A) No licence under sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of subsection (1) shall be granted to a person other than a Department of the Central Government or any authority or an institution or a corporation established by the Central Government, or a Government company...”
4. These provisions have been introduced in the 1962 Act to serve a salutary public purpose. The long title of the Act indicates that it is an Act to provide for the development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful purposes.
5. The Parliamentary regime envisages a calibrated exploitation of atomic power, subject to stringent safeguards, bearing in mind the likely consequences of misuse and, for that matter, of an accident. These provisions which have been introduced in the Act of Parliament, namely, the 1962 Act, cannot be regarded as arbitrary on interfering with the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
