'Question Of What's Good For Country' : Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Plea Against Release Of GM Mustard

The Supreme Court today (January 18) reserved its verdict in the batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging Union government's decision to commercially cultivate/release Genetically-Modified (GM) Mustard, christened 'HT Mustard DMH-11', into the environment.

The Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, had begun hearing the matter on January 9, following retirement of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari in May last year, who was originally heading the Bench presiding on the matter.

A summary of the arguments addressed by parties in the last two weeks, as well as observations made by the court in connection therewith, can be found here and here.

This week, the court witnessed Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta addressing arguments, besides Advocate-on-Record Prashant Bhushan as well as Senior Advocates Sanjay Parikh and Trideep Pais making rejoinder submissions for petitioners .

The Centre primarily argued that the scope of enquiry by the court in the instant case was narrow, with the AG contending that the court's intent behind appointing the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) was not to have a view one way of the other on whether pursuit of scientific research on GM crops is advisable or not.

"That could not have been a term of reference and was not...the court must close its eyes to any observations made by the committee beyond the terms of reference", the AG said.

On this aspect, SG Mehta added that it is nobody's case that the statutory regime in place is arbitrary or otherwise unconstitutional. Quoting a judgment of the court, he averred, "it is neither within domain of the court nor the scope of review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy could be evolved".

The Centre brought to the attention of the court that GM Mustard has a higher per hectare yield compared to non-GM variety and contended that it was for the petitioners to show the "public interest" in restraining open field trails, which are a mandatory process. To quote SG Mehta,

"India is consuming and importing a large quantity of edible oil from GM oil seeds...we should have indigenous production so that we have food security and less dependency on foreign market import...".

It was mentioned that open field trials are to take place only at 8 sites, in very small areas, that too under supervision. "It is nobody's case that they are de hors the present statutory regime", SG Mehta stated.

On the AG refuting the petitioners' claim that India is a centre of origin or diversity for mustard and highlighting that the issue was not a part of the terms of reference for the TEC,  Bhushan cited a publication of the Environment Ministry as per which there are about 13,500 varieties of mustard in India. He contended that even if not a part of terms of reference, the issue of banning of GM crops where India is a centre of origin/diversity was a directly related issue, and the TEC was given "the entire gamut".

Bhushan further urged that India has immense potential for exporting organic food, however, the same would go away if GM Mustard is allowed to be cultivated, as it would contaminate all other varieties of mustard. He highlighted that the government should do its own scientific studies, instead of leaving it on a company and then relying on the company's data.

Raising a concern about potential side-effects of GM Mustard in the long run, Bhushan also mentioned that the TEC had recommended long term chronic studies but the same had not been undertaken. "Even short term studies of animals have been dispensed with", he said.

The issue of illegal imports and illegal planting was also raised on behalf of the petitioners, stating that they had written to the GEAC but no action had been taken. It was prayed that the TEC's recommendations, as also of the Parliamentary Committees, must be directed to be implemented, unless the Union gives sound reasons for objecting to the same.

Expressing a disinclination to enter a debate with scientific experts and in an attempt to prevent the parties from expanding the scope of the petitions, the Bench, during the course of hearing, remarked that the ultimate question was what is good for India.

"In our view, this cannot be an adversarial issue...it is only what is good for the country, good for the people".

The Bench further said that in its verdict, it would be weighing the 2013 report of the TEC on one hand, and what has been done by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) post-2013 on the other. 

Case Title: Gene Campaign and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (and connected matters)