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 Union Government to release genetically modified mustard.While Justice BV Nagarathna 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 Division Bench 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 issued directions for strict monitoring by the Union Government.Aspects On Which The Judges Agreed 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 the 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.Nature In All Her Elements Are Considered Sacred: Justice NagarathnaIn her judgment, Justice Nagarathna underscored the importance of nature. She stated: "Human beings are composed of five elements of nature that teach strength and inspire the formulation of our character. Earth teaches us patience and love. Air teaches us mobility. Fire teaches us warmth and courage. Sky teaches us equality and broad-mindedness. Water teaches us purity and cleanliness” Faced with the widespread destruction of the environment, people everywhere are coming to understand that we cannot continue to use the benefits of the earth like in past., she added and continued: “A new ecological awareness is beginning to merge which rather than being downplayed ought to be encouraged to develop into concrete programmes and initiatives.” The Extent Of Implementation Of Recommendations Of The Committee Constituted By The Court Pertinently, the Court had, in the year 2012, constituted a technical expert committee (TEC). The TEC had opined that the entire GMO regulatory system in the country was in 'complete disarray' and needed to be set right. During the hearing, when the Bench had asked the 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. Regarding this, the Court had expressed displeasure saying “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”. In its verdict, Justice Nagarathna made it clear that the Court is not adjudicating the competing claims made in the scientific literature about the desirability of GMOs, their impact on increasing crop fields in the short ...

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Challenge To Approval For Genetically Modified Mustard Cultivation

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags