Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23580,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23580,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 23416
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.</p><p align="justify">A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.</p><p align="justify">Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.</p><p align="justify">&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.</p><p align="justify">&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. </p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23580,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23580,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 23416
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.</p><p align="justify">A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.</p><p align="justify">Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.</p><p align="justify">&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.</p><p align="justify">&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. </p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ef006e99981-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ef006e99981-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23580,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 23416,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 23580,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 23416
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;NEW DELHI: &lt;/em&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court&#039;s May 6 judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &amp;quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&amp;quot; it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&amp;quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court&#039;s direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. &lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.</p><p align="justify">A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.</p><p align="justify">Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.</p><p align="justify">&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.</p><p align="justify">&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. </p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 23416,
		'title' => 'SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
</p>
<p align="justify">
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 23580,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 23416,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.</p><p align="justify">A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.</p><p align="justify">Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.</p><p align="justify">&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.</p><p align="justify">&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. </p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 23416,
	'title' => 'SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.
</p>
<p align="justify">
A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. 
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 10 December, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-judgment-on-Kudankulam-safety-violated-Petition/articleshow/27144699.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'sc-judgment-on-kudankulam-safety-violated-petition-23580',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 23580,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 23416
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition'
$metaKeywords = 'Safety,nuclear plant,Nuclear Energy,Nuclear Radiation,kudankulam,Health'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India



NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br /><em>NEW DELHI: </em>The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant.</p><p align="justify">A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it.</p><p align="justify">Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said &quot;limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk&quot;.</p><p align="justify">&quot;The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount,&quot; it said.</p><p align="justify">&quot;In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety,&quot; it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant.</p><p align="justify">The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor. </p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

SC judgment on Kudankulam safety violated: Petition

-The Times of India NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses of the Centre, Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) on a petition alleging that the regulatory body gave clearance to Kudankulam nuclear power plant ignoring the court-asserted safety aspects of the plant. A bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri issued notices to the respondents on an appeal filed by G Sundarrajan against a July 29 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed his petition seeking full compliance of safety measures as directed by the apex court's May 6 judgment. The petitioner, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said the AERB, while reviewing the quality of components and safety of the system, had failed to obtain from NPCIL the final design report, commissioning reports and results, proposed operating and operational limits and conditions, and that the plant could be operated without undue risk to the operating personnel and the population residing around it. Bringing up the nuclear liability issue once again, the petitioner said "limiting the financial liability or by indemnifying the supplier completely, the government is facilitating an environment where suppliers would prefer to invest and develop cheaper nuclear reactor rather than safer reactors, thus putting lives and health of millions of people at risk". "The fact that the liability cap (Rs 1,500 crore) is much less compared to cost of a reactor, which is Rs 30,000 crore or more, means that cost of installing basic safety features on the reactor may exceed maximum liability amount," it said. "In the case of Fukushima, the liability had exceeded $18 billion and its quantum has been increasing every day. Against this backdrop, a low liability cap provides a huge incentive to the supplier to take risks with issues of safety," it said, alleging use of sub-standard equipment and improper instrumentation issues in the Kudamkulam plant. The petitioner said the HC erred in not appreciating the criticality of the issue: that authorities did not comply with the apex court's direction for fulfilling conditions of environmental clearances before granting clearance for first approach to criticality of the Kudamkulam reactor.