On July 23, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the validity of the government’s decision to approve the environmental release of GM mustard.
New Delhi, March 6: The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on petitions challenging the government’s 2022 decision to allow the limited environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard.
The matter will now be heard on April 15 and 16.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Ujjal Bhuyan deferred the hearing after Attorney General R Venkataramani requested more time to present arguments.
He informed the court that “a series of discussions at the highest level of the government were underway.”
However, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, pointed out that the special bench had been assigned the matter long ago and was scheduled to hear it on Thursday.
Despite his request to argue, the top court decided to delay the hearing, emphasizing that it wished to “hear the matter at length without any discontinuity.”
Background
On July 23, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the validity of the government’s decision to approve the environmental release of GM mustard. Despite differing opinions on the approval, the court unanimously ruled that the Centre must develop a national policy on GM crops, covering aspects like research, cultivation, trade, and commerce.
The dispute revolves around the recommendations made by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), a statutory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC).
On October 18, 2022, the GEAC recommended the environmental release of GM mustard. This was followed by the government’s decision on October 25, 2022, approving the transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 for environmental release.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, delivered differing opinions on the validity of these approvals. Due to the split verdict, the case was referred to the then Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud, for further review by an appropriate bench.
However, the bench unanimously agreed that the judicial review of the GEAC’s decisions on October 18 and 25 was “permissible.”
The court also emphasized the need for a national consultation to create a comprehensive policy on GM crops.
It stated,
“The MoEF&CC should conduct a national consultation in the coming months with the aim of formulating the national policy on GM crops.”
Additionally, it stressed that “the state governments should be involved in evolving the national policy on GM crops.”
The Supreme Court directed the government to ensure that experts involved in decision-making had their “credentials and past records… scrupulously verified.”
It added,
“Conflict of interest, if any, should be declared and suitably mitigated by ensuring representation to a wide range of interests. Rules in this regard may be formulated having a statutory force.”
Regarding GM food imports, particularly GM edible oils, the court instructed the government to comply with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, stating that it regulates “packaging and labelling of foods.”
The case stems from petitions filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues and the NGO “Gene Campaign.” The petitioners seek a moratorium on the release of GM organisms into the environment until a “comprehensive, transparent, and rigorous bio-safety protocol” is established.
They argue that such protocols must be conducted by “independent expert bodies” and made available in the public domain.
GM mustard hybrid DMH-11 was developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants at Delhi University. Currently, the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India is BT cotton, which was approved in 2002.
