In this interesting recent piece, Arghya Sengupta revisits the vexed issue of nuclear liability law, specifically Rule 24 of the newly notified Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011. This rule, dealing with the right of recourse, i.e. the right of the operator of a nuclear establishment to claim damages from nuclear suppliers in the event of an accident being caused by the fault of the supplier, apparently attempts to substantially limit the fairly wide provisions on recourse contained in the parent statute. Sengupta argues that it is flawed both in principle and policy.
Nuclear Liability in India – Continuing Saga
Further reading
India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention but has historically adhered to international human rights principles. However, recent judicial responses, particularly the Supreme Court’s...
In this article, the author explores the scope of the judicial review of Money Bills by questioning the neutrality of the Speaker’s certification of the Money Bills and analysing Justice...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...
In this piece, the author argues that the deceased deserve a right to dignity and cautions against the dangers of AI-driven digital resurrections, which could reduce the dead to mere commodities. To...
Blurb: This article maps the four statutory criteria central to the sex-consent matrix, which render consent peripheral while elevating social control and sexual obligation. Thereafter, it reads the...
Summary: A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal space. What’s...