The Kudankulam nuclear power plant in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu has finally begun operationsfollowing a landmark Supreme Court of India ruling approving the project. The plant was constructed by the Russian company Rosatom as part of an ongoing strategic Indo-Russian nuclear energy partnership.

The Supreme Court of India gave a final nod to the commissioning of Kudankulam nuclear power plant (KKNPP) one month ago. In its legal judgment India’s highest judicial authority stressed that “KKNPP is safe and secure and it is necessary for larger public interest and economic growth of the country.”The findings of the Court on this delicate issue drew a line under several months of contradictory nuclear opposition.

“Nuclear energy is now considered in India a sustainable source of energy and India cannot afford to be a nuclear isolated nation, when most of the developed countries consider it as a major source of energy for their economic growth,” the Supreme Court of India eventually declared. It is truly a landmark decision.

Kudankulam was constructed on a solid terrain keeping all the safety concerns in mind and under the supervision of top Indian experts. KKNPP reactors designed by Rosatom’s engineers have a double containment system which can withstand high pressure. Russian reactors are known to be very stable: for example, the Bushehr facility successfully passed a harsh stress-test during the latest 6.3-magnitude earthquake in Iran. Enhanced safety measures would be implemented in due course. Nuclear scientist and principal scientific adviser to the federal Government of India Rajagopala Chidambaram has confirmed: “We have learnt lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident,particularly on the post-shutdown cooling system”.

Despite public criticism, the project is rapidly developing. In May 2013, the nuclear plant had the fuel loaded in its reactors.

The commissioning process has been challenged by civil unrest and unexpected new laws introduced by Indian authorities. What is fuelling anti-nuclear protests?

Earlier this year the Indian government announced that several Western NGOs were found to be funding eco-activists fuelling the protests. A number of organizations had their licenses revoked, and dozens more were put on an official watch list. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh later declared, he believes these NGOs were from the US and Scandinavian countries.

Reacting to the statement, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Mr. V.Narayanasamy said:“The people who are agitating near the plant have been continuing their agitation for the past three months. People are being brought there in trucks from various villages, they are being given food”. Three NGOs were also found to be violating the Foreign Contributions (Regulations) Act guidelines.

US corporate interests have also had reason to oppose to plant and have found support amongst America’s highest authorities. In the past the United States argued that Kudankulam deal violated non-proliferation guidelines, but suddenly dropped all these charges when American companies decided to enter Indian nuclear energy market.

For more than a decade, the United States insisted that the Russian-Indian nuclear partnership violates Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines, which were revised in 1992 to demand that India, as “an (official) non-nuclear weapons state (NNWS) must accept full scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on its nuclear facilities and fissionable material” in order to receive nuclear technology. Moreover, Washington noted, the “Principles and Objectives” of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s (NPTs) 1995 Extension Conference says that new supply agreements to NNWS must require full-scope safeguards.

However, following a number of high-profile US-India talks (2005-2008), these demands disappeared. It should be noted, that the whole story behind the US-India nuclear deal is deeply connected with corporate lobbyism. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 5, 2006, the US Secretary of State made it clear it was all about opening a new market for American technology: “At its core, our initiative with India is not simply a government-to-government effort. It was crafted with the private sector firmly in mind.”

But the problem is also within. A hot topic in India’s nuclear policy is the implementation of the so-called “Nuclear Liability Act” to the KKNPP project on the national level. Expansive interpretation of this law provides Delhi with legal pretext for unprecedented regulatory pressure. The government decided that the 3rd and 4threactors will be subject to the new civil nuclear liability law.In fact, it’s an attempt to burden the contractor with extended indemnity insurance (in form of shared financial liability). Clause 7 of the act establishes a dangerous precedent that may affect not only Russian projects but also the willingness of other foreign companies to take part in Indian tenders. Who would like the rules of the game changed after the game has already started?

Casting doubts on bilateral nuclear cooperation between India and Russia may have a negative impact on their strategic partnership. Such initiatives are unheard of in good industry practice. It is still questionable whether this provision could be applicable in this particular case. Bargaining over details should not create long-term regulatory risks, because Kudankulam has finally become the vital part of India’s emerging clean energy portfolio.

Now India and Russia have to find some way to overcome this point of significant contention in negotiations, becausethere is a huge energy deficit in the Tamil Nadu province – energy shortages are not uncommon in the region.It is in the interest of Delhi to maintainthe spirit of mutual trust in Russian-Indian economic relations and reaffirm its commitment to the project.Population’s environmental concerns could be met with the help ofcommunity awareness and emergency response programs.