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
Summary: The approach to ‘transformative constitutionalism’ in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union stands in stark contrast to the rationale preferred in Balram Singh. The central issue concerns both...
Summary: The piece analyses the scope of Section 175(4) of the BNSS. The provision requires a Magistrate, before directing an investigation against a public servant, to seek a report from a superior...
The article focuses on how the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, alters the foundational logic of delimitation itself. In particular, it highlights two underexplored...
The article focuses on how the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-first Amendment) Bill, 2026, alters the foundational logic of delimitation itself. In particular, it highlights two underexplored...
Blurb: In this article, the author critically examines the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on state obligations concerning climate change, unpacking its doctrinal...
Summary: In Murti Devi & Anr. v Balkar Singh, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court denied maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship after considering her male-partner’s conviction for...