GM Mustard Case | Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At GEAC Not Considering Expert Committee Report

During the hearing of the petitions against Genetically Modified (GM) mustard, the Supreme Court on Thursday (January 11) 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.The Technical Expert Committee (TEC), appointed by the Court, made certain recommendations, with one member dissenting. The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol asked Attorney General for India R Venkataramani if the GEAC(which functions under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change) considered the committee's report. The AG replied in the negative, explaining that it was to be considered by the Government and that there was no legal requirement for GEAC to consider such reports.Expressing displeasure at the same, Justice Nagarathna said, “GEAC was not working in vacuum…this court goes to the trouble of appointing a committee…the committee gives a report and there is a dissenting opinion…but nobody takes note of it and the 25 October decision comes…it (report) is lying here in the files…in the records room”.The release of the GM Mustard was put on hold after the Court asked the Centre to maintain status quo in November 2022.The Bench began hearing the case this Tuesday (January 9), when arguments were first addressed on behalf of the petitioners by Advocate Prashant Bhushan. Yesterday, the hearing continued, with Bhushan concluding his arguments and Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh taking over. While making the arguments, Bhushan took the court through the report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC), highlighting that it had examined many studies as well as experts, and was surprised to note that there was no scientific study of the impact of GM crops on human health. Invoking the Precautionary Principle, he submitted that the consequences of the impugned decision would be irreversible, and as such, the principle, which is now understood as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution, is fully applicable to the present case. “It says if you do not know yet what effect of certain things can be, you have to err on the side of caution… It also says that first do all studies which rule out adverse effect and then proceed with the matter”, Bhushan said. Further, he contended that the issue at hand may not only turn out to be a disaster for the present generation, but also for generations to come. It was mentioned that compared to all else, to put a GM into a living crop is a completely different thing, because that crop reproduces, multiplies and impacts other plants. Drawing attention to the fact that a 5-to-1 report was given by the TEC, Bhushan raised the issue of conflict of interest of the dissenting member i.e. ICAR Director Dr. Raj Paroda. He said that Dr. Paroda was on the governing body or Chairman of a number of bodies directly funded by Monsanto. Attempting to convey the source of petitioners' apprehension regarding GM mustard, he highlighted that farmers, though prohibited, may use the herbicide-tolerant (HT) variety of mustard to kill weeds. “It is virtually impossible for the government to regulate this”, Bhushan said. It was also underlined that the herbicide is toxic and will impact our food. Based on the TEC report, it was argued that no GM crop should be allowed to be cultivated where India is the centre of origin or centre of diversity. Bhushan claimed that India, having over 5000 varieties of mustard, is a centre of diversity thereof. On the Bench's enquiry as to whether the genetic modification would improve quality, it was replied that it is an admitted case of the government that the variety will not be grown for any yield advantage. “Sole stated advantage for environmental release is that it would be used to produce new hybrids with better use in future”, Bhushan added. Speaking of the reliefs sought, he claimed that all reports pointed to one thing - that the government is not taking adequate precautions. Therefore, the court may direct implementation of the recommendations of the Technical Committee and Parliamentary Committee reports. “All our prayers are designed to put into effect a system of regulation to ensure that the bio-safety, health effects, environment effects, etc. are addressed before any environmental release of any GMO is allowed”. Notably, he remarked during the proceedings that, “effectively, human health was being sacrificed for the benefit of industry”. He further argued that seed selection will be done on the basis of the HT quality. In response to Bhushan's assertion that the petitioners were essentially aggrieved by the government's decision (dated October 25, 2022) to release the variety in question into the environment, the Bench specifically enquired as to whether there were any ...

GM Mustard Case | Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At GEAC Not Considering Expert Committee Report

Debby Jain

Tags