Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36179 OF 2013

G. Sundarrajan            …. Petitioner

                            Versus

Union of India & Ors.             ….  Respondents

WITH

I.A. NO.3  IN

C.A. NO.4440 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This  Court,  while  disposing  of  the  case  titled  G.  

Sundarrajan vs. Union of India   reported in (2013) 6  

SCC 620, gave 15 directions for due compliance by AERB,  

NPCIL,  DAE,  MoEF,  TNPCB,  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  etc.  

Complaining that those directions had not been complied  

with, the Petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.19286 of

Page 2

2

2013  before  the  Madras  High  Court  praying  for  a  

declaration that the clearance granted by AERB for ‘First  

Approach  to  Criticality’  (FAC)  of  Unit  1  of  Kudankulam  

Nuclear  Power  Project  (KK  NPP)  on  July  11,  2013  be  

declared as null and void.  Writ Petition was heard along  

with few other writ petitions like WP No.15829 of 2013 and  

Writ  Petition  No.20161  of  2013  and  the  same  were  

disposed  of  by  a  common  judgment  dated  29.7.2013,  

against which the Petitioner in Writ Petition  No.19285 of  

2013 has come up with this Special Leave Petition.  The  

Petitioner has also moved I.A. No.3 of 2013 in Civil Appeal  

No.4440 of 2013 for a direction to the respondents not to  

commission the Kudankulam Nuclear Plant till each of the  

15 directions  given by this  Court  in  the aforementioned  

judgment has been complied with and till they are properly  

verified by an independent expert committee appointed by  

this Court.    

2. When SLP (C) No.36179 of 2013 came up for hearing,  

we  passed  an  order  on  17.2.2014  directing  the  

respondents to file their response with regard to steps they

Page 3

3

have taken to give effect to the fifteen directions given by  

this  Court.    In  compliance,  the Respondents  have filed  

their affidavits and status report.    

3. We  heard  Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  senior  

counsel  for  the Petitioner,  Mr.  Mohan Parasaran, learned  

Solicitor  General  of  India,  Shri  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  

senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Shri  

Subramonium  Prasad,  AAG  and  other  learned  counsel  

appearing for the contesting respondents.   

4. AERB in its  affidavit  dated 24.3.2014 explained the  

various steps they have taken so as to comply with the  

various directions issued by this Court. With regard to the  

concern expressed about the possibility of quality issues  

with equipment from specific source, it was also pointed  

out that  additional  re-verification was carried out before  

FAC. While doing so, it was stated that the quality aspects  

of the safety related equipment in KK NPP from that source  

had  not  been  compromised.  AERB  Observers  Team  re-

verified the implementation of QA requirements from initial  

stage  of  manufacturing  up  to  final  receipt  of  the

Page 4

4

component/  equipment  at  Kudankulam.   It  was  pointed  

out,  no  non-conformance  of  significance  to  safety  was  

observed.  With regard to direction no.5, it was pointed out  

that SNF can be stored for a minimum period of 7 years  

within  plant  in  Spent  Fuel  Pool  (SFP)  located in  Reactor  

Building.    Design of  the same,  it  was pointed out,  has  

been  reviewed  from  the  point  of  adequacy  of  design,  

surveillance requirements, monitoring provisions to ensure  

safe  storage  considering  plant  and  public  safety.   For  

storage beyond 7 years, Away From Reactor (AFR) facility  

is planned by NPCIL. NPCIL has submitted the roadmap for  

design,  construction  and  completion  of  AFR  facility  

specifying that  the AFR facility  would  be operational  by  

May,  2018  after  obtaining  clearance  from  AERB.   With  

regard to direction no.7, it was pointed out that DGR is to  

be set up based on national policy and regulatory review  

would be carried out as and when design for the same is  

evolved.  In the meantime, as per the current regulatory  

practices, AERB would ensure safe storage of SNF in the  

spent  fuel  pool  or  AFR  at  Site  and  ensure  that  the  

transportation  is  in  accordance  with  the  AERB

Page 5

5

requirements.  Detailed response has been made to rest of  

the directions in the affidavit filed by AERB.

5. NPCIL has also filed an affidavit along with Annexure  

A furnishing the status report with regard to the directions  

issued  by  this  Court  in  the  above-mentioned  judgment.  

NPCIL with regard to direction no.1, pointed out that the  

quality of equipment supplied by M/s Zio-Pololsk such as  

steam  generator,  cation  and  anion  filters,  mechanical  

filters,  moisture  separators  and  re-heaters  etc.  are  fully  

accessible  for  any  inspection,  and  none  of  Zio-Pololsk  

supplied  equipment  to  KKNPP  are  subject  to  neutron  

irradiation.    Further,  it  was  submitted  that  to  fulfil  the  

directions in para no.230 of the judgment, report has been  

filed.   With regard to direction no.7, it was stated that as  

the present storage capacity of each Spent Nuclear Fuel  

Bay  (SNF Bay)  is  adequate  to  accommodate  discharged  

fuel  for  a  period  of  seven  years  starting  from  its  first  

refuelling operation, and hence as such the AFR facilities  

would only be required eight years after the First Criticality  

of the KKNPP Unit-1.   Further, it is also stated that a Task

Page 6

6

Force  for  finalisation  of  design,  design  basis  report  to  

construct Away From Reactor (AFR) facility for KKNPP Unit  

1  &  2  has  been  constituted  by  NPCIL  vide  office  Order  

dated May 15, 2013 and that the Task Force has prepared  

a roadmap for the design and construction of AFR.  It was  

further pointed out that NPCIL is committed to complete  

the AFR facility within five years.    Reply has also been  

given to the rest of the directions as well.

6. Detailed  affidavit  has  been  filed  on  behalf  of  the  

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board stating the steps they  

have taken to comply with the directions.  Following the  

directions of this Court, it was pointed out, the officials of  

the Board inspected the plant on 18.5.2013 along with the  

members of the Department of the Atomic Energy, NPCIL,  

MoEF, etc. to verify the status of compliance of conditions  

stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in the  

consent  order  granted under  the Water  (Prevention and  

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air  (Prevention and  

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.  It was noticed that the Unit  

has complied with the conditions and the consent order

Page 7

7

issued to the Unit.  Further, it was pointed out that the Unit  

has  installed temperature measuring device both at  the  

sea  water  intake  and  marine  out  fall  facility,  and  the  

difference between ambient temperature of the sea and  

the water disposed into sea by the Unit is not exceeding  

7ºC  as per the conditions stipulated by the Tamil  Nadu  

Pollution Control Board.  

7. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, submitted a  

status report with specific reference to direction nos.11 to  

15.  With regard to direction no.11, it was pointed out that  

the  first  off-site  emergency  exercise  was  conducted  on  

9.6.2012 at Unit at Nakkanery village with the support of  

the  concerned  Ministries  of  the  Government  of  India,  

Officials of the State Government and the local authorities,  

etc., and that the next exercise will be conducted as per  

the guidelines shortly after the Parliamentary Elections are  

over.  With regard to direction no.12, it was pointed out  

that  under  the  Neighbourhood Development  Programme  

(NDP)  being implemented by the Unit,  a  sum of  Rs.200  

crores has been earmarked for  various projects.   It  was

Page 8

8

pointed out that the projects have been identified and that  

an  Apex  Committee  has  been  constituted  to  oversee  

implementation of the NDP.   Further, under NDP, a sum of  

Rs.45 crores has been sanctioned towards first instalment  

of the total amount of Rs.200 crores and from the released  

funds, work for the installation of Solar Street Light (200  

Nos.)  and  Solar  Motor  Pumps  (32  Nos.)  has  been  

completed.   Further,  it  was  also  stated  that  the  

upgradation  of  Koodankulam  Primary  Health  Centre  to  

Government  Hospital  and  improvements  to  Chettikulam  

Sub  Centre,  construction  of  new  PHC  are  nearing  

completion.   The  construction  of  new  PHC  at  Ovari  is  

completed  and the  improvement  and widening  of  roads  

(29 roads) around the Unit has been completed.  Further, it  

was  also  pointed  out  that  around  the  Kudankulam  

surrounding  area,  the  Government  issued  an  order  to  

construct  5000 houses at  the estimate of  Rs.150 crores  

during  the  year  2013-2014.   With  regard  to  direction  

no.13, it was pointed out that training had been conducted  

in  August,  2011,  for  the  State  Government  officials  of  

various  departments  including  revenue,  police,  medical,

Page 9

9

fire, etc. and that a refresher course was organised in June,  

2012.  Further, it was stated, schedule for refresher course  

is  being  planned  in  consultation  with  District  

Administration.  With regard to direction no.14 relating to  

the consent of withdrawal of criminal cases filed against  

the agitators, it was pointed out that out of 349 cases, 248  

cases had already been withdrawn since in those cases no  

violence was noticed.  However, with regard to other cases  

i.e.  cases  of  lay  siege  through  sea  (6  cases),  cases  of  

violence against private individuals (40 cases) and cases of  

violence against  Government  officials  (55  cases),  it  was  

stated,  it  is  not  possible  to  withdraw  the  cases  as  the  

violations  and  crimes  committed  are  very  serious  in  

nature.   The question whether the rest of the cases be  

proceeded with or not is for the trial court to decide on  

which we express no opinion.

8. After  perusing  the  various  affidavits  filed  by  the  

Respondents, we notice that the directions given by this  

Court  are being properly  addressed by the Respondents  

and there is no laxity on the part of the Respondents in not

Page 10

10

carrying  out  various  directions  of  this  Court.    For  full  

implementation of directions, evidently, it may take some  

more time and we are sure that the Respondents would  

make earnest efforts to give effect to all the directions of  

this Court in letter and spirit.  

9. Shri  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that a team headed  

by  a  former  Chairman  of  the  AERB  be  constituted  to  

examine as to whether these directions are being properly  

implemented or not. We find it unnecessary to appoint any  

Committee at this stage since the status report and the  

affidavits  indicate  that  the  Respondents  are  taking  

necessary steps so as to give effect to various directions,  

even though some of the directions are yet to be fulfilled,  

which  naturally  would  take  some  more  time.    At  the  

moment, we find no reason to give any further directions.   

10. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so  

also the I.A.  

………………………….J.

Page 11

11

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

…………………………J. (Vikramajit Sen)

New Delhi, May 08, 2014.