 "SC gives spilt verdict on pleas challenging release of GM Mustard")
The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the validity of the Centre's 2022 decision granting conditional approval for environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard crop.
The apex court, however, unanimously directed that the Centre needs to formulate a national policy with regard to GM crops for research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country.
On October 18, 2022, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) -- a statutory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and regulator of genetically modified organisms in the country -- recommended the environmental release. A subsequent decision was taken on October 25, 2022 approving the environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11, a variety of GM mustard.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol gave divergent opinion on the validity of the two decisions and directed the matter be listed before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for adjudication by an appropriate bench.
"Having regard to the difference of opinion expressed by us on the decision of the GEAC and MoEF granting conditional approval for environmental release of DMH-11, the registry shall place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the said aspect afresh," it ordered in a 409-page judgement.
The bench was unanimous in its finding that judicial review of both the October 18 and October 25 orders of GEAC is permissible.
It directed the Centre to evolve a national policy with regard to GM crops in the realm of research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country.
More From This Section
"The said national policy shall be formulated in consultation with all stakeholders, such as experts in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, state governments, representatives of the farmers, etc," the bench directed.
It said the MoEF&CC shall conduct a national consultation, preferably within the next four months, with the aim of formulating the national policy on GM crops.
The state governments shall be involved in evolving the national policy on GM crops, it said.
The bench further said, "Respondent – Union of India must ensure that all credentials and past records of any expert who participates in the decision-making process should be scrupulously verified and 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 importing of GM food and more particularly GM edible oil, the bench said the Centre shall comply with the requirements of Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, which deals with packaging and labelling of foods.
Rules in this regard may be formulated having a statutory force." Regarding importing of GM food and more particularly GM edible oil, the bench said the Centre shall comply with the requirements of Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, which deals with packaging and labelling of foods.
Dealing with orders of October 18, 2022 and October 25, 2022, Justice Nagarathna termed both the decisions as vitiated.
"I am of the view that the GEAC approval dated October 18, 2022 and the consequent decision dated October 25, 2022 regarding the environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 is vitiated. I also find that the impugned approval was in gross violation of the principle of public trust," she held in her separate 260-page order.
Justice Nagarathna said at the crucial 147th meeting of GEAC held on October 18, 2022, there was no representative of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Ministry of Health.
"Hence, the matter was not considered from the paradigm of the adverse effect on the health of human beings and animals as well as on other plants in the event of environmental release," she said.
Justice Nagarathna said she also finds that the recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee, a panel constituted by the apex court in 2012, have been completely ignored by GEAC.
Justice Karol, however, did not agree with the views of Justice Nagarathna and held that ban on GM crops is not warranted as it is a policy decision.
"The question of ban on HT (GM) crops is not warranted in view of the precautionary principle and it is a decision squarely within the domain of policy," he said in his separate 140–page verdict.
He held that the composition of the GEAC is in accordance with the rules and no fault canbe found with the same.
"The decision of the GEAC to grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of mind, or any other principle of law, on part of the body, which itself is an expert body," he ruled.
Justice Karol said the field trials of DMH-11 shall continue in strict consonance with the conditions imposed.
"The Union of India and statutory authorities shall continue to strictly monitor the same. In case of any adverse change in circumstances, the decision for field trials can be reviewed," he said and directed the GEAC to ensure that the conditions mentioned in the conditional approval of DMH-11 are strictly complied with in letter and spirit.
The top court passed the verdict on separate pleas filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues and NGO 'Gene Campaign' seeking a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by independent expert bodies.
Transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 has been developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants at the Delhi University.
The government has so far approved only one GM crop -- Bt cotton -- for commercial cultivation in 2002.