Today(on 23rd July),The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the GEAC’s approval for releasing genetically modified mustard, with Justice BV Nagarathna opposing it due to a lack of indigenous research on its impact. Justice Sanjay Karol issued a separate judgment reflecting a different view on the matter.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 23rd July), the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (GEAC) approval for the environmental release of genetically modified mustard (GM Mustard).
A Division Bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol, issued separate judgments reflecting their divergent views on the matter.
Nonetheless, the bench unanimously instructed the Union government to develop a policy on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) within four months, following consultations with experts.
Justice BV Nagarathna ruled against allowing the commercial sale and release of GM Mustard in India at this juncture. In her judgment, Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) had granted approval for GM Mustard without considering any indigenous research on its impact within the Indian context.
“Recommendations have been based solely on international research studies, ignoring the need for indigenous research relevant to India. Since no local studies were considered, I conclude that the approvals from October 18 and 25 are flawed, and the 2022 expert committee report is not binding.”
-Justice Nagarathna observed.
On the contrary, Justice Sanjay Karol upheld the GEAC’s decision to approve the commercial sale of GM Mustard. He noted that the GEAC’s composition adheres to the rules and, therefore, any constitutional challenge against it would not hold.
“The GEAC’s composition complies with regulations, and thus, any constitutional challenge will be unsuccessful. As the approval was granted by an expert body, the challenge to this approval cannot be upheld and will fail.”
-Justice Karol stated.
Despite their differences, the Division Bench concurred on several significant aspects related to the case:
- Judicial review of the GEAC’s decisions is permissible.
- The Central government should consider implementing a comprehensive national policy for GM crops.
- To facilitate this, the Ministry of Environment is tasked with convening a meeting to ensure the passage of a National Policy within four months, accompanied by the formulation of necessary rules.
- In terms of importing GM oil, authorities must refer to Section 23 of the FSSAI Act.
Given the split verdict, the crucial question of whether the commercial sale of GM Mustard should proceed will now be addressed by a larger Bench of the Court. The case has thus been referred to the Chief Justice of India for further deliberation.
This legal battle began when a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed challenging the Central government’s decision to permit the commercial cultivation and release of GM Mustard, known as ‘HT Mustard DMH-11’. The GEAC had approved the proposal for commercial cultivation of GM Mustard in 2022, which subsequently received the endorsement of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change.
The hearings on these PILs started on January 9 of this year under a Bench led by Justice Nagarathna. Initially, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari had heard the case, but following his retirement in May 2023, the matter was taken up by the Division Bench headed by Justice Nagarathna.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Bench Split on Abortion Case; Fresh Hearing Scheduled
The conflicting judgments by Justice Nagarathna and Justice Karol reflect the ongoing debate over the safety and environmental implications of GM crops in India. Proponents argue that GM Mustard could significantly boost agricultural productivity and reduce the dependency on imports. However, critics raise concerns about potential environmental risks and the lack of comprehensive indigenous research.
In a recent split verdict, the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of the approval and release of genetically modified (GM) Mustard into the Indian environment. The judgement highlights contrasting perspectives between Justice Nagarathna and Justice Karol on the matter, particularly focusing on the environmental and procedural concerns versus the promotion of scientific advancement.
Justice Nagarathna’s Perspective
Justice Nagarathna emphasized the necessity of balancing environmental protection with developmental goals.
She stated-
“It is crucial to balance environmental protection with the pursuit of development.”
This assertion underscores the court’s role in safeguarding ecological interests while evaluating new technological advancements.
Justice Nagarathna clarified that the court was not reviewing the scientific documents related to GM Mustard, as it is not within its jurisdiction to do so.
She remarked-
“The Court is not reviewing the scientific documents presented in the case, as it is not the appropriate authority for such evaluations.”
Instead, the court’s primary focus was on whether the approval process for the commercial sale and environmental release of GM Mustard was conducted properly.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Supreme Court Stays State Orders for Shop Owners to Display Names During Kanwar Yatra
Upon examination, Justice Nagarathna concluded that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) meeting, where approval for GM Mustard was granted, was flawed. She pointed out that the meeting lacked proper representation and was not conducted appropriately. Consequently, she asserted-
“The approval for the sale of GM Mustard violated principles of public accountability.”
Justice Nagarathna also expressed concerns over the inadequate assessment of GM Mustard’s impact on public health and the environment. She stated-
“I also believe that the inadequate assessment of the impact on public health and the environment constitutes a severe violation of the principle of intergenerational equity and is contrary to the public interest.”
Another critical point raised by Justice Nagarathna was the reliance on non-indigenous studies. She highlighted that the GEAC did not consider any indigenous studies before approving GM Mustard’s release in 2022. To address this, she issued directions on how applications for cultivating GM crops should be handled in the future.
She noted-
“We observe that environmental protection must be considered at the final stage before granting any approval, and that the formation of the GEAC requires reform.”
Justice Karol’s Perspective
Contrarily, Justice Karol focused on the need to balance competing interests: environmental concerns and scientific development. He observed-
“The court frequently encounters situations where it must balance two competing interests.”
He acknowledged the government’s push for scientific development and the concerns of individuals about the potential environmental impact of new technologies.
Justice Karol concluded that the approval process for GM Mustard was not arbitrary.
He remarked-
“Upon independent analysis, I do not find any evidence of manifest arbitrariness in the GEAC’s approval. All aspects of monitoring regulations and approvals are in place.”
He found that the rules governing GEAC and its composition were not arbitrary and ensured a balanced representation. He stated-
“I find no evidence of manifest arbitrariness in the rules governing the GEAC and its composition. The constitution of the committee ensures that bureaucrats and their views do not dominate the decision-making process.”
