Nuking peaceful protests - Praful Bidwai

Even zealous supporters of nuclear power should logically concede three things to their opponents. First, after Fukushima, it’s natural for people everywhere to be deeply sceptical of the claimed safety of nuclear power, and for governments to phase out atomic programmes, as is happening in countries like Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and now Japan.

Second, nuclear power, like all technologies, should be promoted democratically, with the consent of the people living in the vicinity, and with scrupulous regard for civil liberties. And third, safety must be paramount in reactor construction and operation, with strict adherence to norms and full compliance with the rules laid down by an independent safety authority.

The way the Indian government has dealt with the opponents of the Koodankulam nuclear reactors being built in Tamil Nadu violates all three red lines. Rather than treat such opposition as natural, logical and an indication of citizens’ engagement with the world, the Department of Atomic Energy and its subsidiary Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd see it as a pathological condition to be cured by psychiatrists from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore.

The government has all along demonised Koodankulam’s opponents. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, no less, vilified them as inspired by “foreign-funded” NGOs without citing an iota of evidence. The government even deported a German tourist living in a Rs200-a-day room, alleging he was “masterminding” and financing the agitation. This week, it summarily deported three Japanese activists who were planning to visit Koodankulam. All this shows official disconnect with reality. Globally, nuclear power was in retreat even before Fukushima. The number of operating reactors peaked 10 years ago, and their installed capacity has been falling since 2010. Nuclear’s share of global power generation has declined from its peak (17 percent) to about 11 percent.

Post-Fukushima, the global nuclear industry faces its worst-ever credibility crisis. With increasingly adverse public opinion, and rising reactor costs (which have tripled over a decade), it’ll probably go into terminal decline. Jeff Immelt of General Electric, one of the world’s largest suppliers of atomic equipment says, nuclear power is “really hard to justify”. However, India continues its Nuclear March of Folly and has unleashed savage repression against anti-nuclear protesters. Hundreds of FIRs have been lodged against several thousands of people in Koodankulam (according to one estimate, an incredible 55,000 people), and many are charged with sedition and waging war against the state – for organising protests without a single violent incident.

It’s hard to think of another occasion, including the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, or the 1992 Babri demolition, where the state has charged so many people with such grave offences. On September 10, the police launched a vicious lathi and tear-gas attack on peaceful protesters although they were obstructing nobody’s movement. The police literally drove many agitators into the sea, molested women, arrested scores and looted their houses. Police firing killed a fisherman.

A fact-finding team led by Justice BG Kolse-Patil and senior journalist Kalpana Sharma describes the Koodankulam situation as a “reign of terror”, marked by “extreme and totally unjustified” use of force, physical abuse, vindictive detention of 56 people, including juveniles, and targeting of women. Such thug-like police behaviour, it says, “has no place in a country that calls itself democratic”. Yet, repression of movements against destructive projects is becoming part of a deplorable pattern in India. No socially desirable project can be built on the ashes of citizens. This in and of itself is a strong reason to oppose the Koodankulam reactors.

Manmohan Singh last year suspended work at Koodankulam and promised to allay people’s apprehensions regarding safety. But he had no intention of doing so. The sarkari experts he appointed didn’t even bother to meet the people’s representatives or answer their queries about the site’s vulnerability to tsunamis, volcanic activity and earthquakes. People’s fears grew as NPCIL refused to share relevant information with them, including the Site Evaluation and the Safety Analysis Reports. Despite a Right to Information request, a legal petition and a parliament question, NPCIL failed to disclose the text of an Indo-Russian intergovernmental agreement, which reportedly absolves the reactors’ supplier of any liability for an accident.

This puts a disturbing question-mark over the official claim that the reactors are safe, and accidents are all but impossible. If so, why is the supplier evading liability? That brings us to the third factor mentioned above: NPCIL’s non-compliance with safety protocols, and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s approval for fuel-loading in breach of the own norms. This is a grim story. Last year, following Fukushima, the AERB set up under state orders a task force to suggest improvements in reactor safety. This made 17 recommendations, pertaining to freshwater and power backup, improved sensors and instrumentation, etc.

The Koodankulam plant is not compliant with as many as 11 of the 17. The AERB first told the Madras High Court that it wouldn’t permit fuel-loading unless full compliance was established. But within four days, it made an about-turn – probably under pressure from the government. As the comptroller and accountant general has established in a recent report, the AERB lacks independence and is totally subservient to the government. On August 10, it permitted NPCIL to start fuel loading. NPCIL has since been loading live nuclear fuel into the first reactor. This is wrong and dangerous, and shows reckless disregard for safety procedures.

The AERB is guilty of yet more safety violations. Its own rules say there must be absolutely no population in the “exclusion zone” covering a 1.6km radius from the plant, and that the population in the 5km area must be under 20,000. Now, as anyone who has been to Koodankulam will testify, a tsunami rehabilitation colony, with 450 tenements, stands less than 1km from the plant. At least 40,000 people live within a 5km radius. The AERB, supposedly the public’s nuclear watchdog, has turned a blind eye to this. Equally disgraceful is its failure to enforce another rule which stipulates that no fuel-loading be permitted until an off-site emergency preparedness drill is completed within a 16km radius under the joint supervision of NPCIL, the district administration, the state government and the National Disaster Management Authority.

This involves full evacuation procedures, with prior warning, identification of routes, commandeering of vehicles, and clear instructions to the public. No such drill was ever conducted. And yet, the AERB cleared initial fuel-loading. This amounts to playing with the public’s life.

India is loath to move away from nuclear power although the world is abandoning it rapidly. The transition is fastest in the OECD countries, which account for 70 percent of the world’s 429 reactors. There are just two reactors under construction in the West. Both are mired in safety problems, long delays and 130 percent-plus cost overruns. Even France, which gets 80 percent of its electricity from atomic reactors – a fact the global nuclear industry repeats as if that were clinching proof of its own safety and reliability – will reduce its nuclear dependence to 50 percent by 2025.

As nuclear declines, global investment in clean, flexible renewable sources like wind and solar has grossed $1 trillion since 2004. Their costs are falling dramatically. Renewables are the future.

-Praful Bidwai 

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and human-rights activist based in Delhi. 
Email: prafulbidwai1 @yahoo.co.in

Courtesy: The News International

Kudankulam : Where the mind is full of fear - Suvrat Raju, M. V. Ramana

Villagers living around Kudankulam are justifiably scared as empirical data suggest a far higher probability of accidents than claimed by the nuclear establishment

Contempt for democracy is as old as democracy itself. The British liberal, John Locke, wrote in 1695 that for “day-labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairy-maids ... hearing plain commands, is the sure and only course to bring them to obedience and practice. The greatest part cannot know, and therefore they must believe.” The Indian ruling classes have evidently taken these medieval ideas to heart. They are simply unable to acknowledge, anywhere in India, that farmers and working-class people may have a valid and independent perspective on infrastructural projects that must be respected.

The strife in Kudankulam illustrates this attitude. When peaceful rallies against the plant started in 1988, immediately after the project was mooted, the police responded with live ammunition. At the public hearing for the environmental impact assessment of the proposed units 3 to 6, the project met with overwhelming opposition; the government simply ignored this. Last year, when the commissioning of the first reactor became imminent, a large body of people shifted from sporadic expressions of opposition to active but non-violent resistance. The Jayalalithaa government stalled for a while but soon — possibly after striking a political deal with the Manmohan Singh government — rolled ahead with the project. The recent incidents of state repression — in which one person was killed in police firing and paramilitary forces were seen literally driving villagers into the sea — form the latest addition to this pattern.

‘FOREIGN HAND’

Government officials apparently subscribe to the axiom that they understand the interests of the local people better than the people themselves. This is why they tie themselves into bizarre knots, when faced with genuine dissent. For example, earlier this year, the Prime Minister’s Office started insisting that a “foreign hand” was guiding the protests. In an incident straight out of an Orwell novel, the police captured and deported a cash-strapped German backpacker who had almost no relation to the movement. Since the removal of this “mastermind” from the scene has regrettably not had the desired effects, the Home Minister has again started to see visions of “foreign nationals” near the Kudankulam plant.

Lower-level officials seem to be no different. As the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, said succinctly: “the villagers are good. They are being instigated.” This point of view is echoed by pundits who are concerned that the “educated” leadership might get the presumably “uneducated” villagers to act against their “own best interests.” What the Union Ministers, the police and the pundits have in common is a profound contempt for the rights and abilities of ordinary people to control their lives, combined with an ignorance of the actual dynamics of the movement.

All available information suggests that the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) largely comprises the local villagers and fisherfolk. If these people had been as “gullible” as the government claims, its large-scale propaganda campaign emphasising the benign nature of the plant would have succeeded.

The locals are not being irrational. To the contrary, it is the top echelons of our technocracy which have persisted in making scientifically untenable statements. For example, the previous Chairperson of the Atomic Energy Commission stated that the chance of a nuclear accident in India was “one in infinity”! It is easy for people, even without specialised knowledge, to weigh this against the patent evidence from Fukushima offered by TV screens around the world — that nuclear reactors can and do explode on occasion — and decide not to trust the assertions of “experts”.

More quantitative comparisons do not change the broad picture. By means of a process known as probabilistic risk assessment, the nuclear industry routinely trots out precise-looking figures, claiming that the probability of a severe accident is very low. However, empirical data from the past decades of nuclear plant operation sharply contradict these claims and suggest a far higher probability of accidents. This obvious dichotomy has engendered public distrust, and nuclear technocrats have only themselves to blame for this.

It is unclear whether the industry itself believes its safety claims. The manufacturer of the Kudankulam plant, Atomstroyexport, is protected by an intergovernmental agreement between India and Russia, which completely absolves it of any responsibility in the event of a disaster. This agreement is probably inconsistent with India’s domestic laws and judgments of the Supreme Court.

The government has refused to release the text of the agreement despite a Right to Information request, a court petition, and even a parliamentary question, leading to the suspicion that it contains clauses that are even more egregious than commonly suspected.

The government points out that India has never suffered a catastrophic accident. However, India’s total operating experience of about 350 reactor years — a tiny fraction of the world total of about 15,000 reactor years — is too low to allow a valid extrapolation into the future.

If anything, the risk of a nuclear accident in India is likely to be higher than elsewhere because of weaknesses in the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). As the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out in its recent scathing report, the AERB remains “subordinate to the Central Government,” which also operates all nuclear plants in India. The CAG report also stated that the AERB had failed to develop a mechanism to ensure regulatory compliance or oversee the procedures for radiological emergencies.

On Kudankulam, the AERB is unwilling to take its own reports seriously. After Fukushima, an AERB committee recommended that reactors must have sufficient power back-up and freshwater supply for emergency cooling of the reactor and spent fuel pools; the use of seawater for this purpose can corrode a reactor. Instead of ensuring this, the AERB has simply accepted the government’s promise that it will construct a water tank, and provide a mobile diesel generator sometime in the future. The locals have no way of holding the government to account on this assurance.

The fisherfolk near Kudankulam are also worried that the routine operation of the nuclear plant will adversely affect their livelihood. Rather than engaging with these concerns constructively, which it could easily have done, the government has simply dismissed them with more expert opinions.

IMPACT ON HEALTH

There have been a few independent epidemiological studies of the health of people living in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. One study compared the health status of the inhabitants of five villages within 10 km of the Rajasthan atomic power station and four other villages more than 50 km away. It observed statistically significant increases in several indices including the rates of congenital deformities, spontaneous abortions, still births, and solid tumours in the villages closer to the reactor.

This survey does not reveal the precise cause of these differences but, in the absence of any other plausible factor, indicates that it is the nuclear plant that is responsible in some way.

The Kudankulam-1 plant will augment Tamil Nadu’s total installed capacity by about 5 per cent. The question is whether this benefit justifies the risks and costs associated with the plant. For an individual or corporation based in Chennai, the risks may be small enough to be outweighed even by marginal benefits. But the people who are being asked to bear the brunt of the risk and the inconvenience caused by the plant — the locals near Kudankulam — will benefit only minimally.

The government could determine how the locals balance these factors through a meaningful dialogue with the PMANE or direct public consultations. Instead it wants to force them to trust the decisions of its officials and experts. This brings us to the central issue at stake in Kudankulam: is the course of development in India to be charted only by technocrats guided by corporate and upper-class priorities or will India move towards a true democracy where people have control of their own resources and environment?

(The authors are physicists with the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences (Bangalore) and Princeton University respectively. Ramana is also the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India, forthcoming from Penguin India. The views expressed are personal.)

Courtesy: The Hindu

Let us Do Some Soul-search and Talk Again! - PMANE's Press Release 12-09-12

People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy

Idinthakarai 627 104

PRESS RELEASE

September 12, 2012

Let us Do Some Soul-search and Talk Again!

Just like a hapless wife brutally assaulted by her male chauvinistic and drunken husband, like an innocent little child beaten up by his abusive parent, our honest, hardworking, and pious people have been violated, their possessions vandalized, their 400-day long nonviolent movement vilified. By our own government! By our own Chief Minister who we brought back to power to rescue us from corruption, power abuse, nepotism, dynastic rule and double speak! An overwhelming majority of the Tamil voters including almost all the coastal communities voted for the Chief Minister’s party.

When the biggest nuclear power plants in the country or the largest nuclear power park is being set up on our seas that will have deleterious effect on our sea and seafood, land and crops, water bodies and ground water, on our livelihood and on our progeny, we have opposed peacefully, democratically and nonviolently. Don’t we have at least that much freedom in our country?

In fact, the Chief Minister sympathized with our cause in the beginning. She had objected to the Chennai visit of the nuclear-armed ship, the USS Nimitz; and she had opposed the India-US nuclear deal with so much conviction. Our team met with the Chief Minister twice and the Prime Minister once at her own personal initiative. The Chief Minister kept talking about solar power and other renewable sources of energy, kept demanding more electricity from the central pool and more finance for electricity projects in Tamil Nadu. She even said that she would be one among us in our struggle.

We took to the streets, voiced our concerns to the Central Government and asked them to stop the Koodankulam nuclear power project, change our energy policy and to save our natural resources. The District Collector, Dr. R. Selvaraj, entertained us in his office and served us tea and biscuits. The Superintendent of Police, Mr. Vijayendra Bidari, gave oral ‘go-ahead’ every time we sought permission over phone for our demonstrations, agitations and public meetings. But they kept on filing false cases on us all with serious charges such as sedition, waging war on the state and so forth.

The ‘love scene’ changed to ‘hate scene’ in March 2012! The script changed! The situation, the lighting, and the overall direction changed! The Chief Minister alleges that we are all in a ‘maya valai’ (mystical net). Maybe she is referring to nuclear radiation that is indeed like a ‘maya valai’ you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch.

Today we are surrounded by police, beaten up by police, harassed by police, accused of committing all kinds of crimes by police, arrested by police and above all, mentally, emotionally, spiritually assaulted by police. And the Chief Minister is the police minister!

We are all fisherfolks, shopkeepers, agricultural laborers, beedi-rolling women, and to be brief, working class people. We do not steal public money, we do not amass wealth through illegal business deals, and we do not plunder the nation’s natural wealth. But we are treated like criminals; dangerous, seditious, violent, vicious and wicked lawbreakers. Our leaders, who have been invoking the names and wisdom of Thiruvalluvar, Buddha, Mahavir, Ashoka, Guru Nanak, Mahatma Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Mother Teresa, are treated like dreaded terrorists. Our people who worship Sage Vishwamitra, Lord Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohamed are treated with contempt and dislike. The St. Lourdes Church at Idinthakarai has been desecrated by urinating and a holy statue destroyed. Naval boats are patrolling our seas; air force planes are hovering over our villages; the police are blocking our roads; we are short of food, water and other basic essentials; and the state is waging a war on us! But we cannot do a thing!

The global nuclear mafia sees our people as their sworn enemies. The KGB, the CIA and other international intelligence agencies consider us serious threats to their respective ruling cliques. The Delhi Government is infuriated with us as they are worried about their billion dollar nuclear business deals and commissions and kickbacks. The Tamil Nadu Government also tends to treat us like dreaded terrorists and dangerous criminals.

The police have shot down an unarmed civilian Anthony John at Manappadu coastal village. Several people including a small baby are said to be missing. Some 53 nonviolent protesters, men and women, are charged with sedition and waging war on the State cases and are languishing in distant prisons in Tamil Nadu. Thousands and thousands of families are living in fear and despair.

We do not expect or want any awards or accolades for practicing democracy and protesting in a nonviolent manner. But can’t we be treated with a little bit of humanness, civility and dignity? Who should we turn to? Who could we talk to? The Chief Minister may not even see this. Her arrogant upper caste advisors may say everything bad about us and our lower caste people.

We would request the Chief Minister to stop fuelling the KKNPP, remove police from our area, provide compensation for the people who lost their boats, vehicles and household items, and release those who are arrested.

We thank all the leaders and members of various political parties, social movements, lawyer associations, fishermen associations, student groups, labor unions, village committees and other organizations in Tamil Nadu and other states for organizing various demonstrations and agitations in support of our struggle. We would solicit their continued support for our struggle and for the above-mentioned immediate demands as well.

The Struggle Committee

People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy

Former Navy Chief Admiral Ramdas's appeal to Prime Minister to stop Kudankulam

Admiral L Ramdas, (retd)                                                  Lara-Ramu Farm, PVSM,AVSM,VrC,VSM                                   Bhaimala Gaon, PO Kamarle,

Former Chief of the Naval Staff                         Alibag-402209, Raigad Dist

Magsaysay Awardee for Peace                                             Maharashtra

                                      02141-248711/0-9860170960 

                                                         <lramdas@gmail.com>

                                                                      Sept 11 2012                       

Dr Man Mohan Singh

Prime Minister                                                                                                

My Dear Prime Minister,

                                                          

      KOODANKULAM

I am troubling  you once again Mr Prime Minister to voice my concerns regarding the shocking developments and unwarranted  police excesses at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu over the past 48 hours. 

As Law and Order is the  primary responsibility of the State Government, I have highlighted the need for terminating police excesses in my letter sent yesterday to Kum Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, and copied to the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, Delhi.  This letter is addressed to you in your capacity as Prime Minister of this Country responsible for matters of Internal Security  and also as the Minister responsible for the Department of Atomic Energy.

In the above context, I would also like to raise serious concerns regarding Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Power pathway planned for our country.  I have written to you on several occasions about this and related concerns  and whilst I have received the token acknowledgement from your secretariat, alas it has not gone beyond that.

The Prime Minister will also recall that about five years ago, my wife, Lalita Ramdas and I, had called on you and suggested that you might consider  setting  up task forces in our IITs to evolve suitable Renewable Energy  technologies  to meet our varied anticipated power demands. We had also volunteered to work with you to prepare a potential CARBON FREE AND NUCLEAR FREE ENERGY ROAD MAP FOR INDIA. Once again, for reasons best known to you, the Government  chose to follow the dictates of voices which said that if India was to grow ,”There is No Alternative” [TINA factor?] but to go down the nuclear energy and coal power road.

This has meant inevitably large scale requirement of land, displacement of peoples, and the natural fears about nuclear plants, made more real and urgent after Fukushima last year.  Many of us had anticipated the kind of developments that have taken place at Koodankulam yesterday, and now it has actually come to pass.  Despite many committees, delegations and visits to Koodankulam including that of the former President  Dr  Abdul Kalam, their assurances regarding the safety of the plant have clearly not been convincing. Alas, even to this day, neither the local authorities, nor the` experts’  ever attempted to meet or speak with the people in Idinthakkarai  to allay their fears and seriously address their concerns.

 A  decision by the High Court in Chennai  to authorise the NPCIL to go ahead and load the fuel rods, does not over-ride the right of appeal before the Supreme Court, which action is currently in progress. Therefore any attempt to fuel KKNPP and operationalize the same, would be denying the people  their basic right to appeal to the next higher judicial body.

The forcible action by the Tami Nadu police yesterday, to break up a peaceful protest staged on the beaches of Koodankulam was unnecessary. The entire drama was presented in the Electronic media for the whole world to see as it unfolded. Women and children were especially targeted by an almost overwhelming police presence, fully armed with modern weapons and equipment against an unarmed, peaceful and non-violent gathering of protesters, mainly belonging to the fishing community. Surely we cannot take seriously the allegations of the police that they were `trapped’ by fishing nets and hit by sticks – the real time images speak for themselves.

Furthermore we have learned that  the police marched in force through Idinthakkarai while the community were at the Rally, and in their absence, broke into many homes uninvited, vandalised, ransacked  and left many homes in disarray. Worst of all, we are told that the 200 year old Church, on the renovation of which considerable money was spent by contributions from the fishing folk, has been desecrated and vandalised – including the breaking of a statue  of the Virgin Mary. 

Prime Minister, I have stayed in Koodankulam two or three times, and have visited and admired this beautiful  church, and am therefore speaking from personal knowledge because I am being constantly updated on the current tragic events from many of the friends whom I have met on my visits.

Coming to the crucial question of liability, you as the Prime Minister have rightly raised the critical question as to who will bear the cost in the event of accidents to Units 3 and 4 at Koodankulam? Surely an accident can also happen to Units 1 and 2? If the reactors were so safe as claimed and pronounced by no less than Dr Abdul Kalam, and others including the scientists from the expert committee of the Govt, why are the Russians shying away from committing to  the Nuclear Liability Agreement? When no less than the Prime Minister  himself has concerns regarding the  liability question , it is but natural that the well informed fishing communities in the vicinity, are exercised over this, and many other concerns of theirs, including the right to life and livelihood.

The immediate way ahead as I see it is:

1.        Restore all basic needs of the people mainly water, power, milk and food and freedom of movement.

2.       Release all those who have been detained by the police.

3.       Restrain police from seeking out the leadership of the movement to whom credit is indeed due for a sustained, peaceful and democratic protest in the best Gandhian traditions.

4.       Facilitate a discussion quickly with the leadership of the movement IN Idinthakkarai ,to allay their fears and address their concerns regarding safety of the power plant.

5.       Implement the 17 or more safety measures recommended for KKNPP by the government  expert committee set up after the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011. The AERB has acted prematurely in clearing loading of fuel, before these safety measures have been implemented .

6.       Review and implement the recommendations of the CAG report on the performance of the existing AERB.

7.       Expedite legislative action to make the AERB an independent authority as promised by the Government.

In view of the foregoing, I would strongly urge the Honourable Prime Minister to declare a Moratorium on operationalising KKNPP and all future proposed additions of nuclear power plants in the country. 

There are enough alternative  renewable energy resources in the country which can more than meet our developmental  needs – including growth rate.

I have served the nation in uniform for forty four years and nine months – from Cadet to Chief of the Navy, and am proud of all the country’s achievements .  At the same time I am distressed about many policy decisions which have not gone right. Being retired now for almost two decades, I have seen a steady erosion of ethics and values  in all areas of our democracy. Recently I had written to you about  concerns regarding the Indian Armed Forces.  Upholding of Human Rights, and the preservation of Peace and Democracy, has been my primary concern during my retirement.

I have witnessed the hazards of nuclear energy from close quarters, both in and out of uniform, and have no doubt in my mind that we need to find safe, abundant renewable energy to meet our developmental goals. Fortunately  technologies are now available , especially solar, which are both cost effective and feasible.

I have no doubt that you will give this matter your personal attention and act on the recommendations with urgency.

                Sincerely Yours,

                                With Warm Regards,

                                                                               

                                                                                               

L. Ramdas

September 11,  2012

CC: Kum J Jayalalitha

Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu

                                                                                                                                                

Poovulagin Nanbargal's case against Kudankulam in Supreme Court

SYNOPSIS

Nuclear energy is a form of energy that comes with the risk of catastrophic accidents. In the words of Justice V R Krishna Iyer, “Nuclear energy involves the potential for dangerous radiation, high cost generation and the use of delicate technology that could be disastrous… The diabolic, dreadful immortality of nuclear waste that can cause lethal radiation after two or three decades of the use of each nuclear plant represents the gravest crime against humanity.” Therefore the petitioner submits that a foolproof standard of safety is required while dealing with nuclear energy. As has been pointed out by the CAG and several experts including from within the establishment, India’s nuclear safety regulator AERB is body under the control of the very department it is supposed to regulate and merely acts as a rubber-stamping authority, thereby putting to grave risk the rights of the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The instant SLP is being filed challenging the decision of the Madras High Court dated 31.08.2012 in WP No. 22253 of 2012 giving a go ahead to the Kudankulam nuclear power plant without first ensuring that critical safety features (that the Government’s own expert task-force recommended) are put in place and in violation of AERB’s own undertaking on affidavit before the High Court in petitioner’s earlier writ petition. The said recommendations are extremely critical to the safety of the said plant and the plant could not be allowed to run for a day without adequate safety & backup features in place. Though the High Court in the impugned order stated: “It is the duty of the AERB to ensure that these requirements are complied with by the NPCIL (the operator of the plant),” but at the same time allowed the plant to go ahead even though many of the recommendations by AERB’s own admission would take 2 years to implement.

The Government has also absolved the Russian company that is supplying the nuclear reactor from any liability in case of an accident in complete violation of the absolute liability principle evolved by this Hon’ble Court. The Government has also brutally cracked down on the local community peacefully protesting against the plant and has slapped sedition cases against thousands of protestors. Thus it is absolutely clear that the Government intends to push the project through without any consideration of safety, costs, environmental impact and other concerns regarding the project.

     

Immediately after the shocking nuclear tragedy in Fukushima in Japan, the Government of India constituted a Task Force to review, among other things, the capability of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) to withstand and mitigate earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural phenomenon. The Task force made a detailed review of the safety measures of KKNPP in the light of inadequacies of Fukushmia plant which suffered due to lack of alternative fresh water storage and want of back-up power system, and gave 17 recommendations for implementation before commissioning of Units 1 and 2 of KKNPP. There are three important recommendations amongst several others, concerning with alternative fresh water storage system and emergency pumping equipment, which are yet to be implemented even today: “1. Back up provisions from alternate sources should be made for (a) Charging water to secondary side of Stream Generators. (b) Make-up of borated water to spent fuels pools (c) Injection of borated water in the reactor coolant system. 2. Seismic qualification of emergency water storage facility and augmentation of its storage capacity for core decay heat removal for a period of at least one week. 3. Mobile self powered pumping equipment for emergence use.”  

Since the Government of India was in a hurry to commission Units 1 and 2 of KKNPP without first implementing the recommendations of Task Force constituted post-Fukushima nuclear, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition (no. 8262/2012) in the Madras High Court for a direction to implement all the recommendations contained in Annexure 8 to the Final Report of the Task Force before Initial Fuel Loading (IFL) in KKNPP. 

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) filed its counter affidavit in the said writ petition stating that further clearances in respect of KKNPP would be granted only after implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force constituted post-Fukushima nuclear disaster.  The Task Force gave seventeen recommendations and all these recommendations related to the safety of KKNPP. AERB stated:

“The next major sub-stage of commissioning involves Initial Fuel Loading (IFL) for KK Unit No. 1 for which NPCIL has submitted an Application on April 18, 2012 along with relevant documents requesting consent for the same. AERB is conducting safety review of the IFL Application as part of its multi-tier review process before grant of consent. One of the pre-requisites as identified by AERB while giving Clearance for Hot-Run for KK unit No. 1 was that all the relevant recommendations of various AERB Safety Committees (including the AERB Committee to Review Safety of Indian NPPs against External Events of Natural Origin –in short “Expert Committee”) should be assessed and these need to be implemented on a time bound schedule for which NPCIL was asked to give their required submissions. NPCIL is working on the detailed scheme of safety enhancements in the light of various safety committee recommendations  and have submitted their proposal/scheme for KK NPP which is under review by relevant AERB specialist groups and safety committees as appropriate.  Hence in view of the above, the Respondent No. 3 submits that the contention raised by the petitioner for implementation of the Report of the Expert Committee (Annexure-8) before IFL for Unit No. 1 of KK would be taken care as appropriate during the various reviews before the next stage of Clearance i.e. IFL.”

“Subsequently, AERB has been reviewing various commissioning reports based on hot-run test results for KK Union No. 1 and issue of further clearances would be only after the completion of review and resolution of related issues, including the implementation of safety measures in post-Fukushima accident.”

It is this undertaking that the AERB has violated by its order dated 10.08.2012 allowing initial fuel loading (IFL) at KKNPP which is just a stage prior to the commissioning of the project which is slated to start in a few weeks, thus putting to grave risks the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of a large section of the population. AERB now states that implementation of these measures would take 6 months to 2 years. If, by chance, any natural disaster happens before the said measures are implemented, then there is every chance of a meltdown and huge leakage of radiation that would make a large area uninhabitable for decades and would need evacuation of millions of people.

The petitioner therefore challenged the said IFL clearance before the Madras High Court by way of the writ petition (out of which this SLP is arising) on the ground that IFL clearance to Unit 1 of KKNPP could not have been granted by AERB before the implementation of all the recommendations made by the Task Force.  AERB in its counter affidavit has now stated that implementation of some of the recommendations would take 6 months and the rest would take 2 years. AERB ignored that several of these recommendations if not implemented puts to grave risks the safety of millions of people. AERB now in their latest affidavit states: “Based on the review and resolution of NPCIL submissions, AERB agreed for short term (less than 6 months) and long term (less than 2 years), implementation of post Fukushima recommendations from the date of IFL clearance.”

The Madras High Court, after having held that compliance of all the 17 recommendations relating to KKNPP was rightly found by the AERB to be necessary, in the impugned order has dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the AERB is competent to decide whether those recommendations should be implemented before or after IFL in KKNPP, ignoring that final commissioning of the nuclear plant is just weeks away and AERB is neither independent nor credible to be entrusted with the final decision making authority.

This Hon’ble Court in A. P. Pollution Control Board vs. M V Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718, held that precautionary principle is part of the law of the land. The principle mandates that when a new technology or process can cause serious and irreversible harm to human health and the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of the uncertain activity rather than the public has to bear the burden of proof. Therefore, it is absolutely essential in the interest of life, health and safety of a large sections of the population that the precautionary principle is invoked and the Government be directed not to go ahead with the project till all the recommendations of its own task force on safety are implemented.

AERB: The administration of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, is entrusted to the DAE. The Secretary, DAE, in turn constituted the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) by an executive order in 1983, because of which the AERB is a subordinate entity of the DAE. The AERB is answerable to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), whose Chairman is also the Secretary, DAE. Indeed, one cannot conceive of a more subservient existence - the regulatory agency has to report to those whom it is required to regulate and control in the public interest. Hence AERB is riddled with conflicts of interests, as it is answerable to a department whose stated aim is to build more and more nuclear plants.

Former AERB Chairperson Dr. A Gopalakrishnan has stated “The independent safety assurance and regulation has thus been made the responsibility of the same people who manage these installations, defeating the very principle of unbiased external scrutiny.” He has also written that “A captive AERB with its Chairman reporting to Secretary, DAE makes the overall nuclear safety management in India a farce and worthless.”

The International Convention on Nuclear Safety, which India has ratified, mandates that “Each contracting Party shall take appropriate steps to ensure an effective separation between the functions of the regulatory body and those of any other body or organization concerned with the promotion or utilization of nuclear energy.” In India, however, the nuclear regulator has been subordinate to and under control of those whose stated purpose is the promotion of the use of nuclear energy. In fact, lack of independent regulator in Japan was one of the major reasons for the Fukushima disaster as brought out by Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission which stated: “the TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident was the result of collusion between the Government, the regulators and TEPCO and the lack of governance by the said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly ‘manmade’. We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions.” Now, the CAG has given a detailed report confirming the fact that AERB is neither independent nor credible enough to regulate the safety of our nuclear plants. CAG has stated that AERB continues to be a subordinate authority and this “failure to have an autonomous and empowered regulator is clearly fraught with grave risks”.

Other petition: The petitioner had also earlier filed a PIL in High Court in 2011 (WP 24770 of 2011) challenging the go-ahead to the Kudankulam nuclear plant despite the fact that the environment clearance was given on the basis of 1988 agreement that India signed with erstwhile USSR and since then material changes had been made in the said plant, including 1) earlier project envisaged that water for cooling would be used from a lake, but later it was changed to use of sea water with the use of mega-desalination plants; 2) earlier clearance was for increase in water temperature upto 5 degree Celsius (which hugely affects marine life), and later project took it to 7 degrees; 3) original agreement was that Russia would take back the spent fuel, but later agreement had the provision that spent fuel would be retained at the plant; 4) enormous design changes had been to the plant. Without considering these aspects, the earlier environmental clearance was revived. The said clearance is not based on the Costal Zone Regulation, EIA Notification issued by the Government in the year 1991 and 1994 respectively. The HC has however held that MoEF was competent to simply revive the earlier clearance. The Petitioner is moving a separate SLP on this issue for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court.

LIST OF DATES

26.01.1950         Constitution of India comes into force. Article 14, 19, 21 guarantee right to equality, freedom and life respectively. This Hon’ble Court interprets the said fundamental rights to include right to information, freedom from arbitrariness, right to health, clean environment, public safety, and life. Clean environment includes environment free from harmful radiation. This Hon’ble Court holds that ‘precautionary principle’, ‘polluter pays principle’, ‘absolute liability principle’ to be part of the law of land as a facet of right to life guaranteed by the Constitution.

03.08.1954         Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is set-up under the direct charge of Prime Minister of India. The stated objective of DAE is to promote the use of nuclear energy.

01.03.1958         Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) is set-up under the DAE. Secretary DAE is the ex-officio Chairperson of the AEC.

1962                    Atomic Energy Act comes into force

28.03.1979         United States: Accident at Three Mile Island nuclear reactor due to equipment failure and operator error that result in loss of coolant and partial core meltdown officially costing US $2400 million.

1979                    First safety audit conducted by Government after the three mile island incident.

15.11.1983         Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is set-up. AERB is made answerable to the Atomic Energy Commission.

26.04.1986         Ukraine: Chernobyl disaster occurs wherein mishandled safety test causes steam explosion and meltdown, necessitating the evacuation of 300,000 people from the region and dispersed radioactive material across Europe. It costs tens of thousands of lives and about US $ 10 billion.

April 1986           Second safety audit conducted by AERB following the Chernobyl disaster

November 1988 An inter-governmental agreement was signed between Union of India and the erstwhile USSR regarding KKNPP. As per the agreement “Spent fuel” will be send back to USSR.

May 1989            Environmental Clearance was granted to the said project. Some of conditions invoked in the said clearance includes : (i) Pechiparrai river water was identified as source for fresh water  required for the reactor coolant. (ii) Sea water temperature should not exceed 5 degree C over the ambient temperature of the sea.

27.01.1994        Environment Impact Assessment Notification came into force. Para 2 of the notification reads: “2. Requirements and procedure for seeking environmental clearance of projects ;

 1. (A) Any person who desires to undertake any new project or the expansion or modernisation of any existing industry or project listed in Schedule 1 shall submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.

The application shall be made in the proforma specified in Schedule II of this notification and shall be accompanied by a project report which shall, inter-alia, include an Environmental impact Assessment Report/Environment Management Plan and details of public hearing as specified in schedule IV prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of environment and Forests from time to time.”

July 1995            Third safety audit is conducted by AERB. It identifies 130 serious problems with nuclear installations in India out of which 95 are marked urgent.

24.10.1996         International Convention on Nuclear Safety that India has signed and ratified came into force. It mandates that “Each contracting Party shall take appropriate steps to ensure an effective separation between the functions of the regulatory body and those of any other body or organization concerned with the promotion or utilization of nuclear energy.” In India, however, the nuclear regulator has been subordinate to and under control of those whose stated purpose is the promotion of the use of nuclear energy.

May 1998            A fresh agreement was signed between Union of India Russia regarding KKNPP. The term with regard to “Spent fuel” has been changed, and would be retained at the plant.

06.09.2001         Ministry of Environment and Forests revalidated 1989 Environmental Clearance. The letter reads as: “It was observed during the visit that land acquisition has been completed and construction work on various components such as township, Environmental and Health Research Centre, RO Plant etc. is in progress. …Keeping in view the steps already taken to implement the project, the environmental clearance issued in May, 1989 stands valid and there is no need to conduct public hearing and seek fresh environmental clearance.”

23.09.2008         MoEF gave environmental clearance for units 3 & 4 at KKNPP.

21.09.2010         Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 comes into force that limits the liability of the nuclear operator and supplier to only Rs 1500 crores, in complete violation of absolute liability principle propounded by this Hon’ble Court.

                             Russia claims that it is even exempt from this minimal liability since their contract with the Indian government states that they would not be liable.

March 2011   There was an unprecedented nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. Immediately after this nuclear disaster, the Government of India constituted a Task Force to review the safety of all nuclear plants in the country including Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP).

26.04.2011         After severe criticism and protests, Government announced that the report of the Task Force would be put in public domain and the Government would constitute an independent nuclear safety authority that would subsume the AERB.

11.05.2011         The Task Force constituted by the Government of India to evaluate the safety systems of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project  filed its interim report herein it has been mentioned that engineering details of additional measures would be given in August 2011.

August 2011       AERB committee submitted its report.   Annexure 8 to the Report details the recommendations that are required to be implemented before the 2^nd stage of Commissioning i.e. Fuel Loading of the reactor core in KKNPP.  Relevant parts of the AERB report are annexed as ANNEXURE P1. (Page ____________)

2012                    Government arrests thousands of peaceful protestors, slaps thousands of sedition cases, in order to brutally crush the agitation of the local population over fears for the safety of the nuclear plant.

16.03.2012         This Hon’ble Courts admits a PIL (WPC 464/2011) filed by Common Cause, CPIL and several eminent citizens, challenging the constitutional validity of the nuclear liability act since it violates the polluter pays and absolute liability principles.

26.03.2012       The petitioner filed WP No.8262 of 2012 in the Madras High Court for a direction to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to implement all the recommendations of the Task Force constituted post-Fukushima disaster before fuel loading in KKNPP.

5 June 2012      AERB filed its counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 8262 of 2012 inter alia stating that all further clearances in respect of KKNPP would be granted only after implementation of all 17 recommendations made by the Task Force with regard to KKNPP. A copy of the counter affidavit of AERB in Writ Petition No. 8262 of 2012     is annexed as ANNEXURE P2. (Page ____________)

July 2012            Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission submits its report and blames lack of independent regulator for the Fukushima tragedy. The report states: “the TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident was the result of collusion between the Government, the regulators and TEPCO and the lack of governance by the said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly ‘manmade’. We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions.”

23.07.2012         Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board gave Consent Order under Water Act prescribing the tolerance level of trade effluent of KKNPP to be 45 degree celsius   contrary to the stipulations of the aforesaid two EIAs.

01.08.2012         Union of India filed an Additional Counter Affidavit in WP.No: 24770 of 2011 in Madras HC, wherein it was stated that terms of storing “Spent fuel” has been changed by 1998 Supplemental Agreement. Also, para 8 of Counter Affidavit reads: “ The capacity of each of these pools is sufficient to hold the discharged spent fuel from each reactor, which would be produced during seven years of full power operation of the reactor.” Admittedly till date the KKNPP doesn’t have implemented safety requirements recommended by the AERB committee.

02.08.2012         The Hon'ble High Court reserved its orders in WP No. 8262 of 2012 and until 2 August 2012 no further affidavit regarding implementation of the said recommendations was filed by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

09.08.2012         107th Board meeting of AERB was held to consider the application of NPCIL, respondent 3, for initial fuel loading in KKNPP.

10.08.2012         By totally ignoring the said undertaking dated 5 June 2012 given to the Madras High Court, the AERB granted IFL clearance with regard to KKNPP (Unit 1). A copy of the same is annexed as ANNEXURE P3. (Page ____________)

10.08.2012         Petitioner filed writ petition in WP No: 22200 of 2012 challenging the Consent order to operate given by Tamil Nadu Pollution control board.

13.08.2012         The petitioner therefore filed Writ Petition No. 22253 of 2002 challenging the IFL clearance dated 10 August 2012 inter alia on the ground that initial fuel loading in unit 1 of KKNPP without implementation of all the recommendations of Task Force would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and that the failure of AERB to adhere to the undertaking dated 5 June 2012 given before the Madras High Court would amount to contempt of court. A copy of WP 22253 of 2012 is annexed as ANNEXURE P4. (Page ____________)

18.08.2012         AERB filed a counter affidavit in response to the said petition. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P5. (Page __________)

22.08.2012         AERB also filed an additional counter affidavit in the above writ petition detailing the recommendations made by the Task Force, implemented and unimplemented.  The AERB said in the said additional counter affidavit that 6 recommendations had already been implemented, and the remaining 11 recommendations would be implemented within a period of six months to two years.  A copy of the said additional counter affidavit is annexed as ANNEXURE P6.  (Page ____________)

                             Withdrawing its earlier Consent order dated 23.07.2012, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board passed a fresh Consent order No: 22654 wherein earlier tolerance limit  temperature level 45 degree C trade effluent  was modified into : “Not to exceed 7 degree C over and above the ambient temperature of sea.”

                             CAG’s detailed report on the AERB’s “effectiveness of its role as the nuclear regulator of India” is tabled in Parliament. It confirms the fact that AERB is neither independent nor credible enough to regulate the safety of our nuclear plants. CAG has stated that AERB continues to be a subordinate authority and this “failure to have an autonomous and empowered regulator is clearly fraught with grave risks”.

31 Aug 2012       The Madras High Court, without appreciating the fact that KKNPP would be unsafe in the absence of implementation of all the recommendations of the Task Force constituted post-Fukushima disaster and that such inaction on the part of AERB would be dangerous to the lives thousands of people living near KKNPP, dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the High Court would not be in a position to say that the aforesaid 17 recommendations should be implemented before or after IFL in KKNPP.  The High Court has failed to appreciate that eleven (out of seventeen) unimplemented recommendations go to the root of safety of KKNPP and that any negligence on the part of AERB in this regard would result in untold misery and irretrievable damage to the people for generations together.

   11.09.2012      Hence the instant Special Leave Petition. 

***

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

{Order XVI Rules 4(1) (a)}

 (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.              OF 2012

[Arising out of the Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 22253/2012]

IN THE MATTER OF:          

POSITION OF PARTIES

		High Court	Supreme Court
1.                                               1. 2. 3. 4. 5.	G. Sundarrajan 106/2 First floor, Kanaga Durga complex, Gangai Amman Koil street, Vadapalani, Chennai  600 026                                    The Union of India  rep. by the Secretary to Government of India     Department of Atomic Energy, Anushakti Bhavan Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. The Chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board     Niyamak Bhavan, Anushaktinagar     Mumbai – 400 094. The Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai - 400 094. The Member Secretary,  Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,  Chennai - 600 032 The Site Director,  Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project,  Koodankulam, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Dist.	Petitioner VERSUS Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 4 Respondent No. 5	Petitioner Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 4 Respondent No. 5

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India And His Hon’ble Companion Justices of The Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India

The humble Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.   The Petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition against the impugned Final Order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition  No. 22253 of 2012 whereby the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition.

2.   QUESTIONS OF LAW

The following questions of law arise for consideration by this Hon'ble Court:

I.          Did the High Court err in holding that the courts would rely on the opinion of an expert body even if its does not follow the considered advice of other experts and its own undertakings?

II.        Did the High Court err in upholding the clearance dated 10 August 2012 granted by respondent 2-Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) for 'Initial Fuel Loading' (IFL) and 'First Approach to Criticality' (FAC) of Unit 1 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP), without applying the precautionary principle?

III.      Did the High Court err in holding that an expert body can deviate from its own undertakings before the Court and the Courts would desist from interfering in the same?

IV.     Did the High Court not err by stating that since AERB is an expert body so courts will not question its decisions?

V.       Did the High Court err in holding that courts will rely on the opinion of the regulator even if that regulator is subordinate to those whom it is supposed to regulate?

VI.     Can the Courts ignore the potential risk to the lives of millions merely on the basis of undertaking given by Government and its instrumentalities?

3.   DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2)

The Petitioner state that no other Petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by them against the final judgment and order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 31.08.2012 passed in WP No. 22253/2012 titled G.Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors.

4.   DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The annexures produced along with the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents, which formed part of the record of the case in the High Court below against whose order leave to appeal is sought for in this Petition.

5.   GROUNDS

A.            That the High Court erred in not appreciating that the respondent-AERB had given an undertaking to the Court as early as on 5 June 2012 in Writ Petition No. 8262 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner to the effect that any further clearance in respect of KKNPP would be granted only after implementation of all the recommendations contained in Annexure 8 to the Report of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Committee to Review the Safety of Indian Nuclear Power Plants including KKNPP and that ignoring such an undertaking and granting clearance for IFL in KKNPP would amount to contempt of court.

B.         That the High Court has erred in not appreciating that it was incumbent upon AERB to implement all the recommendations made by the Task Force constituted by the Government of India post-Fukushima nuclear accident.  The first recommendation of the Task Force is:  "Back up provisions from alternate sources should be made for charging water to secondary side of SGs, make-up of borated waster to spent fuel pools, and injection of borated water in the reactor coolant system."  To implement this recommendation, NPCIL should construct a seismically qualified 8000 cubic metre tank as an alternate backup water source.  Having noted that this tank has not yet been constructed and that it would take about six months for its construction, the High Court ought to have quashed the clearance for IFL granted by AERB.

C.          That the High Court has erred in not appreciating the second recommendation of the Task Force in proper perspective.  The second recommendation says: "Seismic qualification of emergency water storage facility and augmentation of its storage capacity for core decay heat removal for a period of at least one week."  The schedule for completion by NPCIL says: "Seismic qualification of emergency water storage facility and augmentation as required will be done progressively. (short term)".  The High Court ought to have quashed the clearance dated 10 August 2012 granted by AERB solely on the ground that the AERB had failed to implement the above recommendation before  "initial fuel loading" in KKNPP.

D.           That the High Court ought to have appreciated that the Task Force was constituted by the Government of India post-Fukushima nuclear accident for safety enhancements in nuclear plants including KKNPP,  that the recommendations of the Task Force were supposed to be implemented in letter and spirit before IFL,  and that the AERB undertook before the High Court that those recommendations would be implemented before IFL in KKNPP.  The High Court ought to have held that any further clearance for KKNPP including the clearance dated 10 August 2012 for IFL without first implementing the remaining 11 recommendations detailed in the additional counter affidavit of AERB dated 22 August 2012 would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

E.     That the High Court erred in relying on AERB and stating that since it is an expert body, its decisions could not be questioned in judicial review.

F.    That the non-implementation of the said recommendations of the task force before the start of the project puts to grave risk the safety of millions of citizens and is in violation of the precautionary principle

    6.  GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

A. That the loading of fuel in the reactor core being the essential part in commissioning a nuclear plant, the loading of fuel in Unit 1 of KKNPP will make the plant to attain criticality. Criticality in plant means that the all safety measures needed to prevent any accident must be completed. As on this date KKNPP has not yet implemented about 11 out 17 recommendations made by post Fukushima Task force committee, allowing the loading of fuel in Unit 1 & 2 of KKNPP will adversely put millions of people life in danger. Hence any further action in compliance with fuel loading in Unit 1 & 2 and further commissioning of KKNPP must be stayed. 

7.   PRAYER: 

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully For the reasons aforesaid and those that may be urged at the time of hearing it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased  

A) To grant Special Leave to Appeal to the petitioner under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 31.08.2012 in W.P. No. 22253 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras and

B) Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

    8.  INTERIM PRAYER:  

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

A)      To grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the respondents from further proceeding with Initial Fuel Loading and/Or Commissioning the Unit 1 & 2 of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project till the recommendations of the task force regarding the said project are fully implemented.

B)      Pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

       PETITIONER

 THROUGH: PRASHANT BHUSHAN

   COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 

DRAWN BY: Pranav Sachdeva, adv.              

DRAWN ON:        September 2012       

FILED ON:           September  2012

NEW DELHI