Content

1. India’s Nuclear Governance Needs Regulatory Independence 
2. Dear students, wait, your teacher is on election duty

India’s Nuclear Governance Needs Regulatory Independence 

Why is this in News?

• Editorial debate following the SHANTI Bill, 2025 (Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Technology for India).
• Bill operationalises:
  • Private participation in civil nuclear energy.
  • Target of 100 GW nuclear capacity by 2047 (Viksit Bharat vision).
  • Deployment of at least 5 indigenous Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) by 2033.
• Raises concerns over:
  • Liability framework adequacy.
  • Supplier accountability.
  • Lack of regulatory independence in nuclear governance.

Relevance

GS II – Governance & Polity

• Role, powers and autonomy of regulatory bodies (AERB).
• Centre–regulator relationship; regulatory capture.
• Legislative reforms (SHANTI Bill, Atomic Energy governance).
• Accountability and transparency in high-risk sectors.

GS III – Economy, Energy & Science & Technology

• Energy security and clean energy transition.
• Nuclear energy expansion and SMRs.
• Public–private partnerships in strategic sectors.
• Risk-sharing, liability regimes, and investment climate.

Practice Questions

• India’s ambition of achieving 100 GW nuclear capacity by 2047 hinges as much on governance reforms as on technology and finance. Critically examine the SHANTI Bill in this context.(250 words)

Nuclear Power in India: 

• Share in electricity generation (2024–25): ~3%.
• Installed capacity: ~7.5 GW (largely PHWRs).
• Operator monopoly so far:
  • NPCIL (under Department of Atomic Energy).
• Legal framework:
  • Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
  • Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010.

What is the SHANTI Bill?

Objective

• Enable large-scale nuclear expansion by:
  • Mobilising domestic private capital.
  • Reducing construction and financing risks.
  • Accelerating approvals and commissioning.

Key Shift

• From state monopoly → licensed participation by:
  • Government entities.
  • Public–private joint ventures.
  • “Any other company” (subject to conditions).

Design Logic of SHANTI Bill

1. Controlled Liberalisation

• Private entry permitted mainly in:
  • Reactor construction.
  • Plant delivery.
  • Parts of supply chain.
• Sensitive fuel-cycle activities retained by the State:
  • Enrichment.
  • Reprocessing.
  • Waste management.
• Rationale:
  • Prevent nuclear proliferation.
  • Balance energy expansion with strategic control.

2. Risk Sharing & Capital Mobilisation

• Expands pool of project developers.
• Allows sharing of:
  • Construction risk.
  • Time overruns.
  • Financing burden.
• Essential for achieving 100 GW target.

Liability Framework: Key Provisions & Concerns

Provisions

• Operator liability cap: ₹3,000 crore.
• Beyond the cap:
  • Central government assumes liability.
• Centre may:
  • Assume full liability for non-government installations “in public interest”.
• Mandatory insurance or financial security for operators.

Concerns

• ₹3,000 crore may be:
  • Inadequate for mass casualty compensation.
  • Insufficient for long-term environmental remediation.
• Government installations exempted from insurance:
  • Raises transparency and public accounting concerns.
• Risk of socialising losses, privatising gains.

Supplier Accountability Issues

• Operator’s right of recourse against suppliers allowed only:
  • If expressly written into contracts, or
  • If damage results from intentional acts.
• Implications:
  • Supplier liability becomes contract-dependent, not statutory.
  • Varies across projects.
  • Weakens uniform safety incentives.
• Echoes criticism of dilution of original CLNDA intent post-2015.

Regulatory Governance: The Core Weakness

Current Structure

• Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB):
  • Not fully independent.
  • Linked institutionally to DAE.
• Under SHANTI:
  • Appointments and oversight continue to vest heavily with:
    • Central government.
    • Atomic Energy Commission.

Why Regulatory Independence Matters ?

• Public trust:
  • Nuclear safety demands credibility and transparency.
• Investor confidence:
  • Independent regulator reduces political and conflict-of-interest risks.
• Global best practice:
  • IAEA norms emphasise separation of:
    • Operator.
    • Promoter.
    • Regulator.

Comparative Overview

• Countries with successful nuclear expansion (France, UK, Canada):
  • Strong, arm’s-length nuclear regulators.
  • Clear liability regimes.
  • Predictable enforcement mechanisms.
• India risks:
  • Regulatory capture.
  • Perception of weak oversight.

Overall Assessment

Strengths

• Pragmatic response to India’s energy transition needs.
• Enables scale through domestic capital.
• Reduces legal ambiguity for new entrants.
• Can shorten project timelines.

Risks

• Liability caps may under-protect victims.
• Supplier accountability diluted.
• Continued regulator dependence undermines trust.

Way Forward

• Establish a statutorily independent nuclear regulator.
• Revisit operator liability caps with inflation-indexing.
• Create uniform statutory supplier liability floors.
• Ensure transparent accounting for government-run installations.
• Align governance framework with IAEA safety and independence standards.

Dear students, wait, your teacher is on election duty

Why is this in News?

• Editorial critique of routine deployment of government schoolteachers for election-related duties.
• Renewed relevance amid:
  • Intensifying electoral schedules (frequent elections, by-polls).
  • Learning losses post-COVID and concerns over foundational literacy.
  • Debate on misuse of Article 324 powers and neglect of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009.

Relevance

GS II – Polity & Governance

• Powers of Election Commission under Article 324.
• Balance between constitutional bodies and fundamental rights.
• Implementation gaps in the Right to Education Act, 2009.
• Administrative ethics and state capacity.

GS I – Social Issues

• Education inequality.
• Impact on disadvantaged children.
• Foundational literacy and learning outcomes.

Practice Question

• Critically examine the impact of deploying government schoolteachers for election duties on the right to education and learning outcomes in India.(250 words)

Core Issue in One Line

• India’s democracy relies on teachers for election management, but this comes at the systematic cost of children’s right to uninterrupted education, especially in government schools.

Constitutional & Legal Basics

• Article 324: Empowers Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct elections.
• Teachers as “government servants”:
  • Routinely requisitioned for electoral rolls, polling, counting, logistics.
• Right to Education Act, 2009:
  • Mandates regular schooling and teacher availability.
  • Section 27: Allows deployment of teachers for non-educational duties only for decennial census, disaster relief, and elections.
• Tension:
  • Constitutional democracy vs constitutional right to education.

What Exactly Do Teachers Do During Elections?

• Preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
• Booth-level officer (BLO) duties.
• Training, polling, counting, supervision.
• Often involves:
  • Long hours.
  • Tight deadlines.
  • Travel to remote locations.
• Risks:
  • Documented cases of stress-related illness and deaths.

Unequal Impact on Children

Government vs Private Schools

• Government schools:
  • Teachers pulled out → classes cancelled.
  • Principals forced to “manage” students without instruction.
• Private schools:
  • Largely insulated from election duties.
• Outcome:
  • Discriminatory impact on poorer children.
  • Reinforces educational inequality.

Pedagogical Costs

• Teaching is not mechanical labour.
• Requires:
  • Planning.
  • Continuity.
  • Classroom presence.
  • Evaluation and feedback.
• Election duty disrupts:
  • Academic calendars.
  • Examination schedules.
  • Foundational learning, especially at primary level.
• Editorial insight:
  • Primary school learning gaps cannot be “covered up” later.

Governance Paradox Highlighted

• Teachers are:
  • Trusted to conduct free and fair elections.
  • But not trusted enough to be shielded from non-academic burdens.
• State perception:
  • Teaching treated as a “soft profession”.
  • Assumption that teachers are “free” for administrative work.

Democratic Irony

• Teachers:
  • Have been pillars of Indian democracy since Independence.
  • Provide electoral legitimacy at the grassroots.
• Yet:
  • Costs of democracy are externalised onto children, not the state.
  • Children “pay” through lost learning time.

RTE Act: Missed Opportunity

• Original draft (pre-2009):
  • Sought to minimise non-teaching duties.
• Final Act:
  • Diluted safeguards via Section 27.
• Supreme Court:
  • Has upheld election duty deployment as constitutional.
• Result:
  • Legal sanction without pedagogical sensitivity.

Ethical & Administrative Concerns

• Human cost:
  • Teacher burnout, health risks, fatalities.
• Moral hazard:
  • Easy availability of teachers discourages administrative innovation.
• Accountability gap:
  • No learning-loss audit linked to election deployment.

International Perspective

• Many democracies:
  • Use dedicated election staff, retirees, or temporary civil services.
• India:
  • Relies excessively on frontline social-sector workers (teachers, ASHAs, anganwadi staff).

Way Forward: Policy Options

• Create a dedicated election services cadre.
• Limit teacher deployment to:
  • Poll-day only, not preparatory phases.
• Compensatory mechanisms:
  • Mandatory academic recovery plans.
  • Additional teaching days.
• Digitisation:
  • Reduce manual electoral roll burdens.
• RTE-compliant safeguards:
  • Clear ceilings on non-teaching days per academic year.