BREAKING| Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Challenge To Approval For Genetically Modified Mustard Cultivation
In a crucial development, the Supreme Court today (July 23) delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the approval given by the the Union Government to release genetically modified mustard.
While Justice BV Nagarathan quashed the approval given by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Justice Sanjay Karol upheld the same.
In view of the difference of opinion, the bench directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench to hear the matter afresh. It may be recalled that during the hearing of the petition, the Union Government had agreed to not implement the decision.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol pronounced its verdict in the batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the Union government's decision to commercially cultivate/release genetically modified (GM) Mustard, christened 'HT Mustard DMH-11', into the environment. This is the first time a transgenic food crop is planned to be cultivated in India.
Justice Nagarathna, in her judgment held that the approval given by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) on 18.10.2022 and the subsequent decision dated 25.10.2022 regarding the environmental release of transgenetic mustard are "vitiated" and contrary to the principle of public interest. The judgment noted that the decision was taken in haste, without considering several aspects, including the impact on health.
Justice Nagarathna noted that the FSSAI has not conducted any study on the impact of GM mustard on health. The failure to adequately assess the impact on health and the environment seriously infringes upon intergenerational equity, she observed.
Justice Karol however held that the approval given by the GEAC was not vitiated. Justice Karol however issued directions for strict monitoring by the Union Government.
Aspects on which the judges are on agreement.
The judges agreed on the following aspects :
Judicial review of the GEAC decision is permissible.
The Union of India has to evolve a national policy regarding GM corps. The policy be framed in consultation with all stake holders, including states, farmers groups etc. For that purpose, the MoEF should conduct a national consultation within the next four months. States shall also be involved.
Union must ensure that all credentials of experts should be scrupulously verified and conflict of interest must be mitigated. Rules to be framed.
In the matter of importing GM food, the provisions of FSSAI Act should be enforced.
Non-governmental organisation Gene Campaign filed an interim application in its ongoing public interest litigation (PIL), originally initiated in 2004, seeking the strengthening of the regulatory system for genetically modified organisms (GMO). The list of petitioners also included Research Foundation for Science Technology and activist Aruna Rodrigues and food security activist V Ananthasayanan.
Arguments Advanced By The Petitioners
Advocate Prashant Bhushan led the arguments for the petitioners, beginning with an explanation of the dangers posed by genetically modified organisms, particularly when experimented on in open-field trials. Genetic modification is a process by which the gene of a completely foreign organism is inserted into either a food crop or anything else in order to change its characteristics.
To bolster his contentions, Advocate Prashant Bhushan had also referred to the recommendations of a technical expert committee (TEC) constituted by the Supreme Court in May 2012, as well as the 'serious concerns' raised by a parliamentary standing committee. The TEC had opined that the entire GMO regulatory system in the country was in 'complete disarray' and needed to be set right.
The technical expert committee said that herbicide-tolerant crop should totally be banned in India. All we are asking is for the government to follow the recommendations of this committee,” Bhushan told the bench.
Regarding this, the Court had expressed displeasure at Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) not considering the recommendations of the Court appointed expert committee before taking its decision in October 2022 to release the GM mustard variety into the environment.
Pertinently, the release of the GM Mustard was put on hold after the Court asked the Centre to maintain status quo in November 2022.
Arguments Put Forth By The Union
After the conclusion of arguments on behalf of the petitioners, AG Venkataramani addressed his arguments.
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 or the other on whether the pursuit of scientific research on GM crops is advisable or not.
Relying on a recent study, the petitioners' claim that India is a centre of origin/diversity for mustard was denied. “India's mustard gene pool is very narrow”, the AG said. He also asserted that the bio-safety regime prevalent today guarantees and addresses all concerns and issues.
The AG specifically denied that GM crops have any adverse impact on the soil. It was submitted that large-scale adoption of GM crops has taken place in countries like the USA, Brazil, Australia, etc., which are major producers and exporters of agricultural commodities.
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.
Case Details:
- Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP (C) No. 115/2004]
- Aruna Rodrigues & Ors. v. Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. [WP (C) No. 260/2015]