Tamil Nadu
Idindhakarai
,
Kudankulam
,
Tirunelveli
Published :
May 2022
|
Updated :
June 17, 2025
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant faces renewed protests over waste, port, and expansion plans
Reported by
Hariprasad Radhakrishnan
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Anmol Gupta, Mukta Joshi
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
2996
Households affected
14380
People affected
1979
Year started
1053
ha.
Land area affected
2996
Households affected
14380
People Affected
1979
Year started
1053
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Power
Reason/Cause of conflict
Nuclear Power Plant
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
Sector
Power
Reason/Cause of conflict
Nuclear Power Plant
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Rural
Ended
1
Summary

Protests have marred the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) since its conception in 1979. Even after it began commercial operations on 31 December 2014, several protests have been staged against various activities, including the construction of a away-from-reactor (AFR) facility for units 3 and 4 of the KNPP and a port to provide adequate facilities to handle floating ships. Earlier, a similar plan for the construction of a AFR facility for the first two units was postponed indefinitely following widespread opposition.

Local residents and fishing communities have been concerned about the loss of livelihood due to environmental degradation from radioactive effluents that may come out of the plant since day one. The construction of the plant began in 2001. Until it became operational in 2014, Tirunelveli district witnessed a strong people's movement to resist the setting up of this plant. In 2011, following the Fukushima disaster in Japan in which close to 15,000 people were killed, women residents of Idinthakarai village of Tirunelveli district led to huge protests against the KNPP. The then Tamil Nadu government came down heavily on the protestors and filed sedition charges against almost all residents of Idinthakarai, i.e. around 9,000 individuals.

During the 2021 election campaign, the Stalin government promised to revoke more than 200 cases out of 369 cases filed against protesters, however, S P Udayarkumar, the convenor of People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) alleged the promise remains unfulfilled

In March 2022, the Kudankulam village panchayat passed a resolution against the construction of the AFR facility. Locals fear that the spent nuclear fuel stored in the AFR will pose a serious environmental hazard to the area. Further, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin wrote to the Prime Minister requesting the government to transport the spent nuclear fuel to Russia or set up a deep geological repository (DGR) in an uninhabited and ecologically non-sensitive area to store the waste. It may be noted that the Supreme Court had given the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) until 30 April 2022 to construct a DGR. However, there has been no progress on this front so far.

LCW spoke with environmental activist G Sundarrajan of Poovulagin Nanbargal, an NGO which moved the Supreme Court against the KNPP previously. He said that he would approach the court again for the DGR.

The construction of units 3 and 4 began in 2017 and work on units 5 and 6 in 2021. Two further units - Kudankulam 7 and 8, AES-2006 units with VVER-1200 reactors - have been proposed as the fourth phase of the plant. In December 2023, India signed an MoU with Russia a plan to establish unit 7 & 8, leading to further protests.

In July 2024, fishermen protested against the construction of breakwaters to replace the old minor port, alleging that the nearby fishing village of Idinthakarai would be severely affected by sea erosion due to the pressure caused by the giant rocks being placed in the sea and the construction of a wall.

In October 2024, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s Steering Committee for Public Undertaking has sought a detailed report from the KNPP officials regarding the nuclear waste management.  

Environmental activist and advocate Vetriselvan from Poovulagin Nanbargal, an NGO which moved the Supreme Court against the KNPP previously, told LCW, ”DGR is the final dispensable mechanism for the nuclear waste from the plant. DGR is mandatory if Nuclear power plants are functioning. Any nuclear plant shall not have any sort of storing/dispensable mechanism of nuclear waste as the Fukushima disaster surged due to on-site storage of nuclear waste.”

Moreover, recent announcement on the privatisation of the nuclear deals and opening gates for foreign investment in nuclear energy has raised further concerns among people and environmental groups like Poovulagin Nanbargal and PMANE. 

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Complaint against procedural violations

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Land lenders family have not received employment, the plant management states that those people are not skilled or doesn't meet the requirementt criteria

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

195

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Undergoing trial

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Yes

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections 121, 124A, 153A

Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1934

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Rejected without prejudice

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

The FIR that was filed had only the names of SP Uthayakumar, S. Sivasubramanian and K. Rajalingam and 192 others - states SP Uthayakumar

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

SP Uthayakumar - 9865683735

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other environmental services

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

110000

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2001

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Department of Atomic Energy, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Atomic Energy Commission, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Yes

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, Poovulagin Nanbargal

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Arrest

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

195

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Undergoing trial

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Yes

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections 121, 124A, 153A

Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1934

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Rejected without prejudice

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

The FIR that was filed had only the names of SP Uthayakumar, S. Sivasubramanian and K. Rajalingam and 192 others - states SP Uthayakumar

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Hariprasad Radhakrishnan

Hariprasad is a Tamil Nadu-based independent journalist who writes primarily on environmental and developmental issues. He has worked for and contributed to a number of leading publications. He can often be seen playing chess or struggling to learn the keyboard.

Show more work
Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Complaint against procedural violations

Opposition against environmental degradation

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

Yes they were informed, Yes they had access

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

No

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Rejected without prejudice

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

The FIR that was filed had only the names of SP Uthayakumar, S. Sivasubramanian and K. Rajalingam and 192 others - states SP Uthayakumar

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Other environmental services

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us