Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

G. SUNDARRAJAN vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SCR Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 631
Year/Volume: 2013/ Volume 8
Date of Judgment: 06 May 2013
Petitioner: G. SUNDARRAJAN
Disposal Nature: Appeals Disposed Off
Neutral Citation: 2013 INSC 314
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /4440/2013
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Nuclear Power Plant -Safeguarding of plants, radioactive materials and ensuring itsphysical security- Requirement of protecting life and propertyof people including the environment - Balance to be struckb.etween developmental needs and environmentaldegradation - Decision taken by the Government of India,Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) etc. for settingup of KKNPP- a nuclear power plant (NPP) at Kudankulam,Tamil Nadu - Challenge to - Held: Nuclear energy is animportant element in India's energy mix - KKNPP was set upas part of India's National Policy so as to develop, control anduse of atomic energy for welfare of the people of India - Forsetting up the project, the project proponent has taken allsafety requirements in site and off site and followed the codeof practices laid down by AERB, based on nationally andinternationally recognized safety methods - DisasterManagement Plan (DMP) is already in place, so also theemergency preparedness plan, off site and on site and allprogrammes under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)progressing in the right direction with co-operation andassistance of the District Administration - NPCIL, alsoreceived necessary environmental clearance from MoEF,TNPCB, etc for Units 1 to 6 - No violation of CoastalRegulation Zone (CRZ) noticed - Desalination Plantestablished after following rules and regulations - Experts ofthe view that there will be no impact on the marine eco-systemand that radiation impact on the eco-system is within the standard set by AERB, MoEF, Expert Appraisal Committee(EAC), Pollution Control Board etc. - All expert teamsunanimous in their opinion of the safety and security of theKKNPP both to life and property of the people and theenvironment which includes marine life - Justification forestablishing KKNPP at Kudankulam, therefore, vindicated -Apprehension, however, legitimate, cannot overridejustification of the project - However, directions given bySupreme Court in regard to safety of the plant, impact onenvironment, quality of various components and systems inthe NPP plant - Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of RadioactiveWastes) Rules 1987 - The Hazardous Waste Managementand Handling Rules 1989 - Environmental (Protection) Act,1986 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Water (Preventionand Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act, 1981.Government Policy - Nuclear Policy - Judicial review -Scope - Held: It is not for Courts to determine whether aparticular policy or a particular decision taken in fulfillment ofa policy, is fair - Unless the policy framed is absolutelycapricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and based on mereipse dixit of the executive authority or is invalid inconstitutional or statutory mandate, court's interference is notcalled for - Courts· to respect national nuclear policy of thecountry reflected in the Atomic Energy Act and the same tobe given effect to, for welfare of the people and the country'seconomic growth - Atomic Energy Act, 1962.Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (NuclearLiability Act) - Purpose and object of - Held: Is to provide civilliability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation tovictims of a nuclear accident through No-Fault Liability to theoperators.

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • Atomic Energy Act
  • Nuclear Power Plant
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2013 AIR 615 = 2013 (6) SCC 620 = 2013 (6) Suppl. SCC 620 = 2013 (7) JT 266 = 2013 (7) Suppl. JT 266 = 2013 (7) SCALE 102