'Environmental Harm Can't Be Reversed' : Supreme Court Defers Centre's Plea For Release Of Genetically Modified Mustard Seeds

The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the consideration of the Centre's plea for the withdrawal of an oral undertaking made to the court in November last year pledging to maintain the status quo on the release of genetically modified (GM) mustard. This undertaking was made before a bench headed by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari who has since retired. The central government's recent application will be heard on September 26. Last week, the central government filed an application seeking to be discharged from its promise against taking any precipitative steps for the release of GM mustard, contending that the undertaking was made last year at the Bar in view of the matter's imminent final hearing and the sowing season being months away. But, with the retirement of Justice Maheshwari, the batch of petitions had to be reassigned to another bench despite the near completion of the oral argument. This has now led to the central government requesting to be allowed to proceed with subsequent steps with respect to the environmental release of the transgenic crop. In its affidavit, the Centre has, among other things, highlighted not only mustard's significance as a major edible oil and seed meal crop crucial for ensuring the food security of the country, but also the approaching September and October sowing season. After Justice Dineshwari's retirement, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan is now hearing a batch of petitions seeking a ban on the commercial cultivation of indigenously developed genetically modified mustard, christened 'HT Mustard DMH-11', which in October, received the imprimatur of the environment ministry. This is the first time a transgenic food crop is planned to be commercially cultivated in India. Courtroom Exchange Today, Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati, who had made the November undertaking, personally appeared in court with a request to be discharged from it. She put special emphasis on the upcoming sowing season and the circumstances under which the pledge was made in the first place – “The seeds were already sown in eight out of ten sites. When this court asked us to not take precipitative action in view of the matter being listed in the following week for final hearing, I gave this assurance. The next sowing season was also one year away. This undertaking was made under these circumstances. We are at the last phase of research. This is not a commercial release, but environmental release.” She further argued that the environmental release was a culmination of over a decade's worth of research, and the conditional approval for it would be valid for four years. Four sowing cycles will have to be examined and studied by the scientists to determine the future course of action, the law officer told the court. Saying this, ASG Bhati requested – “If Your Lordships discharge us from our undertaking, we can proceed to sow the mustard seeds at the ten sites initially proposed and carry out the research. This court, while deciding this matter, will also have the benefit of our reports. Alternatively, at least allow us to sow the seeds in the eight sites that we studied last year and place our report before this court. We are keen on not losing this season.” Justice Nagarathna asked the law officer, “If we discharge you, what remains in this matter?” The judge also cautioned that the Centre should not 'release anything'. “It will not be commercially released without this court first hearing the matter,” ASG Bhati clarified, “This is only environmental release which is the final phase after 12 years of research.” At this juncture, Advocate Prashant Bhushan interjected to raise biosafety concerns over an environmental release of GM mustard leading to contamination of non-genetically modified crops – “Environmental release means release into the environment. If they want to do any test, they can do it in greenhouse conditions so that it is not released into the environment and contaminate other non-GM crops. The technical expert committee constituted by this court said, in no uncertain terms, that no open-field trial should be allowed unless the whole regulatory system, which is in shambles, is fixed first.” ASG Bhati objected to this saying that field trials had gone on since the court-appointed committee lifted an embargo on it – “They asked for a stay in 2006. Those field trials were on one-acre plots, and then 2.5-acre plots. It's been out of the lab for a long time. After initially imposing a restriction, this court lifted the embargo. Field trials have gone on for a long time. Now we are at the final stage.” Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for Gene campaign, chimed in, saying that the Centre had actually not honoured its undertaking – “We urged the crops that were sown to be uprooted and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner to prevent any chance...

'Environmental Harm Can't Be Reversed' : Supreme Court Defers Centre's Plea For Release Of Genetically Modified Mustard Seeds

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

'Environmental Harm Can't Be Reversed' : Supreme Court Defers Centre's Plea For Release Of Genetically Modified Mustard Seeds

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers