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
This article examines India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, focusing on the adequacy of its consent-based framework as the primary mechanism for privacy protection. It discusses...
This article examines the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment on the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, focusing on the Court’s effort to resolve the long-standing definitional ambiguity surrounding the ecosystem...
The article is divided into two parts. Part-I seeks to establish that ASHA workers fulfil conditions to be recognised as workman under the IRC. Part-II aims to show how the feminisation aspect...
The article is divided into two parts. Part-I seeks to establish that ASHA workers fulfil conditions to be recognised as workman under the IRC. Part-II aims to show how the feminisation aspect...
Summary: The article analyses the case of Hari Devageeth v Union of India. It highlights the conflict faced by the court between two constitutional rights: a transgender man’s right to bodily...
Introduction The fifth panel highlighted the multi-faceted dimensions of behavioural accountability within the Indian Judicial system. Moving beyond the constitutional frameworks, the panelists...