The Supreme Court of India was urged to urgently hear a contempt plea filed by Aruna Rodrigues alleging that government officials wilfully violated court directions requiring a national policy on genetically modified and gene-edited crops before permitting their release in India.
The Supreme Court of India was approached with a plea urging it to urgently list a contempt petition alleging that senior government officials have “wilful and deliberate” violated the Court’s directions regarding the release of genetically modified and gene-edited crops in the country.
The contempt application was filed by Aruna Rodrigues in connection with her long-pending 2005 public interest litigation on genetically modified crops. She alleged that the Union government has not complied with the Supreme Court’s judgment dated July 23, 2024, and with earlier directions that required the Centre to first develop a comprehensive national policy for genetically modified (GM) crops before any release is permitted.
The plea states that the Supreme Court had instructed the government to develop such a policy only through a consultative process involving experts, state governments, and other stakeholders.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Rodrigues, informed the Court that while the contempt petition had been filed long ago, it still had not been listed for hearing. He brought the matter before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. In response to Bhushan’s submission, the Chief Justice said he would look into the matter.
The contempt petition has named Tanmay Kumar, Devesh Chaturvedi, and Amanseep Garg as respondents.
The petition specifically cited the allegedly “unlawful” commercial release of Herbicide Tolerant (HT) Basmati rice varieties marketed under the name ‘RobiNOweed’, along with other genome-edited rice varieties including ‘Kamla’ (DRR Rice 100). It alleges that these releases occurred in May 2024 and May 2025, during periods when the Supreme Court had either reserved judgment in the matter or had expressly directed that no GM crops should be released until a comprehensive national policy had been framed.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Delays Hearing on GM Mustard Case Until April 15
The petition further contends that the Centre provided “solemn assurances” to the Supreme Court between 2016 and 2017 that no environmental release of GM crops would take place while the litigation was pending.
By permitting commercial sale of such seeds, the petition alleges that the authorities have effectively made a “mockery of the judicial process”.
The plea also highlights concerns about the possible contamination of India’s rice germplasm, which reportedly includes more than 80,000 unique accessions. It notes that India is considered a centre of origin for rice and states that a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) constituted by the Supreme Court had recommended a complete prohibition on Herbicide Tolerant crops in such regions.
“The release of HT rice initiates irreversible contamination of India’s priceless rice germplasm,” the petition states, adding that such contamination could harm India’s standing as a major exporter of non-GMO Basmati rice an export market estimated to be worth more than USD 12 billion, or about Rs 1 lakh crore.
The petition recalls that, following the Supreme Court’s order dated May 10, 2012, a Technical Expert Committee was constituted, which submitted its final report in 2013 recommending a total ban on HT crops in India, particularly in crops such as rice and mustard where India has substantial genetic diversity. It states that the TEC found HT crops to be environmentally unsustainable, socio-economically detrimental, and scientifically unsafe for Indian agricultural conditions.
The petition also refers to the TEC report’s observations about herbicide ‘Roundup’ and similar chemicals linked to HT crops, which it says were identified as probable carcinogens. Despite these concerns, the petition alleges that the Centre repeatedly assured the Court that no environmental release of HT crops would occur while the case was under judicial consideration.
The plea alleges,
“However, on 24.05.2024 – during the period when judgment was reserved – the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), which falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, proceeded to announce and effectuate the commercial release of HT Basmati rice varieties (RobiNOweed) in clear defiance of the assurances tendered before this Hon’ble Court,”
The petition further points to the release of other genome-edited rice varieties in 2025. It claims that,
“More recently, on May 04, 2025, DRR Rice 100 (Kamla) and Pusa DST Rice 1, which are also genome-edited rice, have been released by none less than the Minister for Agriculture,”
According to the petitioners, the release of Herbicide Tolerant and gene-edited rice amounts to deliberate disobedience of the judicial process and is directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment delivered on July 23, 2024. The plea states that the judgment required the Union of India to first evolve a comprehensive national policy on GM crops through a consultative process involving experts, state governments, and all stakeholders, adding that it also made clear that no such GM crop should be released without such a policy in place.
Accordingly, the petition seeks directions to:
“Initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful and deliberate disobedience of orders dated…, read with judgement dated July 23, 2024.”
On July 23, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the validity of the Centre’s 2022 decision granting conditional approval for the environmental release of a genetically modified mustard crop. However, the bench unanimously held that the Union government must formulate a comprehensive national policy covering research, cultivation, trade, and commercial use of GM crops in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE