The immediate effect of the Supreme Court order has been that it has cleared the legal cloud over the nuclear power reactors at Kudankulam. But the real significance of the judgment lies in the manner in which it has dealt with the subject of harnessing nuclear energy for public good. In the most comprehensive verdict yet on the subject, it addresses almost every issue that is raised against nuclear energy, including questions on environmental impacts, safety, regulation, and disaster management.
In sending out its message, the court could not have been more unambiguous. It has emphasised several principles that are likely to guide all similar disputes in future not just about nuclear projects but all important industrial and development projects. One, the exploitation of nuclear energy for producing power is a matter of policy, and courts can not be expected to intervene, unless there is a violation of law in the way the policy is implemented. Two, there is an almost unanimous view amongst all technical and scientific organisations over safety of a nuclear reactor, and therefore, the court cannot be asked to sit in judgment on this view.
Three, concerns on environmental degradation has to be weighed against developmental needs, and ‘larger’ public interest has to take precedence over the inconvenience caused to a smaller group. But at the same time, life of some cannot be sacrificed for the purpose of eventual larger good. Four, once the justification for the nuclear reactor has been established, as it has been in case of Kudankulam, the reactors can not be held hostage to apprehension. "Apprehension, however legitimate it may be, cannot override the justification of the project. Nobody on this earth can predict what would happen in future and to a large extent we have to leave it to destiny. But once the justification test is satisfied, the apprehension test is bound to fail," the court has said. Five, maintaining safety is not a one-time affair but an ongoing process. "Be alert, remain always alert, and duty calls you to nurture constant and sustained vigilance," it has said.
It is easy to see what was weighing on the minds of the two judges on the bench when they delivered their verdict. The emphasis on ‘larger’ public interest could not be missed, neither in observations the judges made in the court, nor in their judgment where there is a repeated reference to it. The court has also noted that though it was not accepting the plea of the petitioners, who had demanded the closure of the Kudankulam project, it appreciated their "noble effort" in raising the issues of local population and enabling a full-scale discussion on all aspects of nuclear energy.
The court case was the most comprehensive, and sensible, debate on Kudankulam reactors, and nuclear power in general — something that several months of street protests against the reactors did not achieve. It is probably time for those against the project to set aside ideology andlisten to the voice of reason.