New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre to explain whether exempting the Russian manufacturer of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant’s reactor could adversely cost India’s exchequer and tax payers in the event of a tragedy taking place because of faulty reactor. This comment came from a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, which is hearing a petition challenging a Madras high court decision to allow KNPP to commission work. Petitioner’s counsel Prashant Bhushan argued that commissioning the plant without 17 safety measures recommended by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) could spell doom if a tragedy struck the plant. Though his focus was to put in place the 17 safety measures before any commissioning work, Bhushan also talked about the nuclear liability law and alleged that the exemption to Russian manufacturer of any liability was in breach of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, 2010. Referring to Section 17 of the Act, the bench sought the Centre’s assistance in interpreting the section and wanted to know whether limiting the manufacturer’s liability would adversely impact the national exchequer and tax payers in the event of a nuclear tragedy. Bhushan requested the court to take an undertaking from the Centre not to commission the nuclear plant till a decision was pronounced on the petition. But the court referred to the ‘Jal Yatra’ protests and said, “It is not so easy to commission the plant.” The counsel said a large number of people lived around Kudankulam plant and they would face grave risk to their health and life if the nuclear installation went critical without the 17 safety measures being im plemented. Fuel loading done in Kudankulam F uel loading in the first unit of the Kudankulam power plant has been completed. The loading of uranium fuel began on September 19, a day after the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board gave its final clearance. But the Nuclear Power Corporation has been tightlipped on developments inside the plant following a series of litigations in the Madras HC and the SC. TNN