The Civil Nuclear Liability for Damages Act of India enacted in 2010 has been a matter of concern to international suppliers and vendors. This is due to the perceived deviation of the law from the principle of legal channelling of liability (to the operator) which is at the heart of international nuclear liability jurisprudence. Specifically, this notion arises from allowing recourse to suppliers under outside of the circumstances mentioned in the Annex of the Convention for Complementary Compensation. Sections 17 and 46 which embody this notion are subject to different interpretations, some of them implying the compliance of the Indian regime with the international nuclear liability regime and many others equally suggest otherwise. In 2015, Government of India through a detailed Frequently Answered Questions clarified the nature and meaning of these sections. However, interestingly, there are two cases pending before Supreme Court of India contesting the constitutionality of the legislation in which these two specific provisions are also disputed. The article attempts to explain and resolve the ambiguity through a study of Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation. I undertake an analysis of the reasoning given under the 2015 FAQ in the light of the disputed Sections 17 and 46 and bring out a probable prediction of Court’s interpretation of the Sections of the Act.