This Article is From Aug 20, 2010

Govt on the backfoot on Nuclear Liability Bill

New Delhi: The government was called out by the Opposition on the draft of the Nuclear Liability Bill as the Left and the BJP accused the government of changing one crucial word in the text that gave the suppliers a leeway from paying damages.

The culprit seems to be the word "and" placed in a context which implies major changes.

Now, the government is likely to return to the original version. But the question remains: How did such a major slip up take place?

According to the BJP, the original agreed text read:

Clause 17 of the bill allowed the operator of the plant to seek damages from the supplier if:

A) There's a pre-existing contract on liability between them

B) Or if there's gross negligence or willful act by the supplier

But in the final draft, the word "and" was added between Part A and B. This, the BJP and Left say, makes supplier liable only if there's a pre-existing contract with the government.

And what's curious is that a new page with the amendment was stapled to the old page.

Furious, the BJP submitted an unsigned note to Minister of State Prithviraj Chavan to go back to the original, agreed text.

"We've already taken the concerns of the BJP and the Left on board. If there are any more concerns, those will be addressed in all seriousness," Chavan said.

"A notorious word "and" - a very simple word - was used. But the addition of the word is an amendment. If you look at the report which was placed yesterday in the Rajya Sabha, you'll find there's a clipport. In the original report they prepared, "and" is not there - when the report was discussed. And then this comes to the House with "and"," CPM leader Prakash Karat said.

The government refused to comment so it's unclear how the draft got amended. But it has gone cautious - today the Cabinet was to clear the new bill but the meet was cancelled.

But, with barely 10 days left in the Monsoon Session of Parliament, if the government is keen to pass the bill it might have to go back to the original agreement, if not fix the liability for the alteration in the report.
.