<p>A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said that the courts did not have the expertise in this regard but it would look into the issue if some concrete suggestions were put forward.<br /><br />The apex court also reminded advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGOs Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and other petitioners, that it could not take upon itself the work assigned to the Parliament.<br /><br />“There are issues relating to policy matters. We cannot convert the Supreme Court into Parliament,” the bench told Bhushan as he was insisting the court issue notice to the government for establishing an independent regulatory body for monitoring nuclear plants.<br /><br />The court, however, said that it was conscious of the fact that the matter was important as it concerned Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. “We are not experts. Have a proper debate. Please have a public debate and come out with concrete suggestion.”<br />“So far as safety of public is concerned, Article 21 is in our mind which can certainly be argued but for other aspect we cannot convert this court into Parliament,” the bench, also comprising justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, said.<br /><br />Bhushan, who also made reference to Lokpal Bill during the hearing as being discussed in public domain, was told curtly by the bench “not to mix up two things”. “Don't compare this issue with Lokpal. Lokpal is different,” the bench said.<br /><br />However, the court asked the petitioners to place before it within four weeks the models adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada other countries on the appointment of regulatory body, independent of the government and establishment, to overlook the nuclear safety.<br /><br />During the hearing, Bhushan said people of the country were sitting on a “time bomb" which could explode any time and mentioned an article written by eminent nuclear scientist A Gopalkrishnan, who is also an expert in nuclear safety and in the past chaired the convention on nuclear safety to which India was a signatory.<br /><br />The court was hearing the PIL seeking setting up of an expert nuclear regulator, independent of the government to conduct comparative cost-benefit analysis vis-a-vis other sources of energy.<br /><br />The petitioners including former Cabinet Secretary T S R Subramanian, former chief of Naval Staff L Ramdas, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former secretary to the prime minister K R Venugopal and others, had also urged the apex court to declare the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 as “unconstitutional”.<br /> </p>
<p>A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said that the courts did not have the expertise in this regard but it would look into the issue if some concrete suggestions were put forward.<br /><br />The apex court also reminded advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGOs Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and other petitioners, that it could not take upon itself the work assigned to the Parliament.<br /><br />“There are issues relating to policy matters. We cannot convert the Supreme Court into Parliament,” the bench told Bhushan as he was insisting the court issue notice to the government for establishing an independent regulatory body for monitoring nuclear plants.<br /><br />The court, however, said that it was conscious of the fact that the matter was important as it concerned Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. “We are not experts. Have a proper debate. Please have a public debate and come out with concrete suggestion.”<br />“So far as safety of public is concerned, Article 21 is in our mind which can certainly be argued but for other aspect we cannot convert this court into Parliament,” the bench, also comprising justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, said.<br /><br />Bhushan, who also made reference to Lokpal Bill during the hearing as being discussed in public domain, was told curtly by the bench “not to mix up two things”. “Don't compare this issue with Lokpal. Lokpal is different,” the bench said.<br /><br />However, the court asked the petitioners to place before it within four weeks the models adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada other countries on the appointment of regulatory body, independent of the government and establishment, to overlook the nuclear safety.<br /><br />During the hearing, Bhushan said people of the country were sitting on a “time bomb" which could explode any time and mentioned an article written by eminent nuclear scientist A Gopalkrishnan, who is also an expert in nuclear safety and in the past chaired the convention on nuclear safety to which India was a signatory.<br /><br />The court was hearing the PIL seeking setting up of an expert nuclear regulator, independent of the government to conduct comparative cost-benefit analysis vis-a-vis other sources of energy.<br /><br />The petitioners including former Cabinet Secretary T S R Subramanian, former chief of Naval Staff L Ramdas, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former secretary to the prime minister K R Venugopal and others, had also urged the apex court to declare the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 as “unconstitutional”.<br /> </p>
