Nuclear Harm Without Remedy? Caps, Confidentiality and Conflict in International and Indian Law

Nuclear law began as a regime protecting persons and property and has gradually absorbed environmental protection, public participation and compensation for environmental harm. Between December 2025 and October 2026 three developments tested that evolution. First, India enacted the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act 2025 (SHANTI Act), which repeals the Atomic Energy Act 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010. Second, armed conflict repeatedly endangered operating nuclear facilities, at Zaporizhzhia and in and around Iran, while the 2026 NPT Review Conference ended without a consensus document. Third, the Supreme Court of India issued notice on a constitutional challenge to the Act that raises, among other questions, whether statutory liability caps can limit a constitutional court’s power to award fair compensation. Using doctrinal analysis of primary legislation, treaty practice and official institutional statements, this paper asks whether the international and Indian regimes now secure environmental protection and adequate compensation for nuclear harm. It identifies three accountability gaps: a liability gap (capped, exclusion-prone and partly notification-dependent compensation, reached through a forum provision that may narrow available remedies), a transparency gap (statutory restriction of information against participation norms) and a conflict gap (non-binding protection of facilities in war). It concludes with legislative, regulatory and diplomatic recommendations for India. The study is purely doctrinal: statutory provisions are cited to the enacted text, but the Rules and Regulations remain in draft, and the Supreme Court proceedings, the Iran conflict and treaty-body practice rest largely on secondary reports.