Delhi High Court Exempts Kudankulam Nuclear Plant Safety Report from RTI Disclosure
The Delhi High Court has determined that the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is not subject to disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This decision arises from the case Nuclear Power Corporation Vs SP Uday Kumar.
Presiding over the case, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav overturned a directive from the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had previously mandated Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to release the SAR to the RTI applicant, SP Udaykumar.
The Court concluded that NPCIL holds the report in a fiduciary role concerning the Russian Federation. This relationship exempts the report from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which protects information held in a fiduciary capacity.
“The petitioner holds the SAR in a fiduciary capacity concerning the Russian Federation. Under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, such information is clearly exempt from the statute’s scope,” Justice Kaurav stated.
Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the SAR’s disclosure could adversely impact India’s scientific, strategic, and economic interests, as well as its foreign relations. This aligns with the exemption outlined in Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
More Read
Background of the RTI Application
The legal proceedings originated from an RTI request filed in 2010, during the construction phase of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Udaykumar sought various documents related to Reactors I and II, including the safety analysis report, site evaluation report, and environmental impact assessment report.
While NPCIL provided the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, it withheld the safety analysis and site evaluation reports, citing proprietary reactor design details as the basis for their exemption.
In April 2012, the CIC ordered NPCIL to disclose these documents after redacting proprietary information and to make them available on its website. NPCIL contested this directive in the Delhi High Court.
More Read
Court Proceedings and Judgment
During the court proceedings, NPCIL informed the Court that the site evaluation report had already been supplied to the RTI applicant and was accessible on its website. Thus, the primary issue before the Court was whether the SAR should be disclosed.
NPCIL argued that the Kudankulam project was established under an inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia. According to this agreement, the Russian Federation was responsible for the plant’s design, while NPCIL handled construction, erection, and commissioning.
The Court emphasized that NPCIL had informed Atomstroyexport, the Russian entity involved, about the CIC’s order. Atomstroyexport opposed the publication of the SAR.
The High Court also referred to a Supreme Court verdict from 2013 in G Sundarrajan v Union of India, which addressed safety concerns related to the Kudankulam project. The Supreme Court had noted the incorporation of advanced safety features and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s post-Fukushima safety recommendations.
Justice Kaurav highlighted that the Supreme Court had already thoroughly addressed and dismissed safety-related concerns, leaving no significant public interest to justify the SAR’s disclosure.
“Considering the Supreme Court decision in G Sundarrajan, wherein the safety-related concerns have been adequately considered and rejected, there cannot be any larger public interest concerns warranting disclosure of the information,” the Court observed.
More Read
Consequently, the High Court annulled the CIC’s directive to release the safety analysis report. NPCIL was represented by advocates ER Kumar, DP Mohanty, Aditya Sharma, and Jayant Bajaj. The respondent, SP Udaykumar, was not represented in court.
