SHANTI Bill 2025: Private Investment in Nuclear Power – Opportunity or Risk?

After six decades of state monopoly, India stands at the threshold of a historic transformation in its nuclear energy sector. The Union Cabinet’s approval of the Atomic Energy Bill 2025, known as SHANTI (Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India), marks the most significant policy shift since the nation’s atomic programme began. This legislation opens India’s tightly controlled nuclear ecosystem to private participation—a move that has ignited passionate debates across policy, environmental, and investment circles.

The Nuclear Reality Check

India’s nuclear energy sector presents a picture of unrealised potential. With 25 operational reactors generating approximately 8,880 MW, nuclear energy contributes merely 3% to national electricity generation. This modest figure contrasts sharply with France, where nuclear power accounts for 70% of electricity production. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has maintained exclusive control since 1962, managing all commercial nuclear facilities under the Department of Atomic Energy.

The government’s ambitious target of achieving 100 GW nuclear capacity by 2047 requires investment estimated at ₹19.28 trillion (approximately $214 billion). Current capacity expansion barely keeps pace, moving from 6.8 GW in 2020 to 8.8 GW in 2025. This reality has driven policymakers toward embracing private sector participation.

Understanding the SHANTI Framework

The SHANTI Bill consolidates multiple existing laws into a unified legal framework. Key provisions include opening atomic mineral exploration to private entities, permitting equipment manufacturing beyond government facilities, allowing private participation in fuel fabrication, and creating pathways for private ownership of nuclear power plants under strict regulatory oversight.

Most significantly, the bill establishes an independent nuclear regulatory authority, separating regulation from promotion functions currently overlapping within the Department of Atomic Energy. This addresses long-standing conflict of interest concerns and aligns India with international best practices.

Aspect	Current System	Under SHANTI Bill
Operator	NPCIL exclusively	Private sector allowed
Regulatory Authority	Under DAE	Independent body
Investment Source	Government budgets	Public-private partnership
Liability Framework	Ambiguous	Capped with insurance
Technology Focus	Large reactors	Includes Small Modular Reactors

The Compelling Opportunity

The case for private involvement rests on several compelling arguments. Capital mobilisation stands foremost—the government cannot allocate the massive funds required while meeting competing demands for infrastructure, healthcare, and social welfare. Private investment could unlock billions in domestic and international capital, accelerating project timelines significantly.

Technological innovation represents another crucial advantage. Private companies working on Small Modular Reactors bring cutting-edge designs, advanced safety systems, and cost-efficient construction methodologies. The government has allocated ₹20,000 crore for developing indigenous SMRs, targeting the deployment of five units by 2033. Private sector expertise could prove instrumental in achieving this goal.

Operational efficiency improvements are equally important. Private operators demonstrate superior project management, reduced construction timelines, and better cost controls. International experience shows private-public partnerships in complex engineering often outperform purely state-driven initiatives.

Energy security cannot be overlooked. As India pursues net-zero by 2070, nuclear power offers reliable, carbon-free baseload electricity—something intermittent renewables cannot provide. Private investment could help India reduce dependence on imported coal and strengthen energy sovereignty.

The Critical Risks

Despite advantages, the SHANTI Bill raises legitimate concerns. The nuclear liability question remains contentious. While the bill promises clearer responsibilities and insurance-backed liability caps, critics worry about inadequate compensation for potential accidents and whether profit-driven entities will maintain the highest safety standards when cost pressures mount.

National security implications demand careful consideration. Nuclear technology involves dual-use materials and knowledge. Private sector involvement requires robust safeguards, stringent background checks on investors, enhanced monitoring of materials, and foolproof protocols preventing technology leakage. Government assurances of strategic control must translate into concrete, enforceable mechanisms.

Economic viability presents a formidable obstacle. Nuclear plants require enormous upfront investment, take seven to ten years to commission, and face competition from increasingly affordable renewable energy. Without government guarantees or assured long-term power purchase agreements at remunerative prices, private investors may find nuclear projects financially unattractive.

Public acceptance represents an often-underestimated risk. India has witnessed significant anti-nuclear protests at sites like Jaitapur and Kudankulam. Communities fear radiation hazards, environmental degradation, and inadequate emergency preparedness. Private operators might struggle more than state entities in managing community relations. Transparent communication, robust environmental assessments, and genuine community participation will be essential.

Learning From Global Experience

India’s move isn’t unprecedented. The United States pioneered private nuclear power in the 1950s with mixed results—financial overruns and accidents like Three Mile Island led to decades without new construction. The UK has attracted private investment, though projects like Hinkley Point C face massive cost escalations.

China presents an interesting counterpoint—while maintaining state control, it has created specialised state-owned enterprises operating with commercial discipline, achieving remarkable success in expanding nuclear capacity rapidly and cost-effectively. South Korea’s model, combining state oversight with competitive private contractors, has delivered projects on time and within budget.

The Path Forward

The SHANTI Bill represents neither unmitigated opportunity nor catastrophic risk—it embodies both, demanding careful implementation. Several principles should guide the path forward.

Regulatory independence must be genuine and well-resourced. The proposed nuclear regulatory authority should have statutory autonomy, adequate funding, and access to top technical talent. Comprehensive safety protocols need rigorous enforcement. Private operators must meet standards at least as stringent as those applied to NPCIL.

The liability framework requires clarity and fairness. While caps make projects insurable, they must be high enough to ensure adequate compensation for worst-case scenarios. Phased implementation would be prudent—beginning with equipment manufacturing and fuel fabrication, gradually extending to reactor operations as experience builds.

Transparency and community engagement cannot be afterthoughts. Environmental impact assessments should be rigorous and publicly available. Local communities must participate meaningfully in decision-making, with fair compensation frameworks established upfront. Building public trust will determine long-term success.

Conclusion

The SHANTI Bill marks India’s recognition that achieving clean energy goals requires bold reforms and new partnerships. Private investment can accelerate nuclear capacity expansion, bringing capital, technology, and efficiency that the government alone cannot marshal. However, nuclear energy’s inherent risks demand that this opening proceed with extraordinary care.

Parliament must scrutinise the bill thoroughly, ensuring adequate safeguards exist. The nuclear regulatory authority must function independently and effectively. Most importantly, the government must resist prioritising speed over safety or commercial considerations over public welfare.

If implemented thoughtfully with robust oversight and genuine transparency, the SHANTI Bill could represent a turning point in India’s energy trajectory. If rushed or inadequately regulated, it could create risks far outweighing benefits. The nuclear option demands we proceed with eyes wide open—embracing opportunity while respecting risks, welcoming innovation while enforcing accountability.

Key Statistics