On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict regarding the commercial sale of Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard in the case of Gene Campaign vs Union of India and Others. The Division Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, issued separate judgments on the matter.
Justice Nagarathna ruled against the commercial sale and release of GM Mustard in India for the time being. She highlighted that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) had approved GM Mustard without considering any indigenous studies on its impact in India and the potential environmental consequences.
"Only global foreign research studies have been used for recommendations. Given the context of India, indigenous research should have been taken into account, but none was considered. Therefore, the approvals of 18/10 and 25/10 are invalid, and the expert committee report of 2022 is not binding," Justice Nagarathna stated.
In contrast, Justice Karol upheld the GEAC's decision, supporting the commercial sale of GM Mustard. He emphasized that the GEAC's composition adheres to established rules, rendering the constitutional challenge unfounded. "The GEAC's approval is by an expert body, and thus, any challenge to such approval is untenable," he said.
However, the Division Bench agreed on several related aspects:
The question of whether the commercial sale of GM Mustard should continue will now be referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, as directed to the Chief Justice of India.
The Court was addressing a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the Central government's decision to permit the commercial cultivation and release of GM Mustard, known as 'HT Mustard DMH-11'. In 2022, the GEAC had approved the proposal for its commercial cultivation, which was also endorsed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change.
The PILs were initially heard by a Bench led by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari in January. Following Justice Maheshwari's retirement in May 2023, the case was taken up by the Division Bench led by Justice Nagarathna, which has now issued a split verdict.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized the importance of environmental protection alongside development. She clarified that the Court was not reviewing scientific documents but was focused on whether the approval process for GM Mustard's commercial sale was appropriately conducted.
She concluded that the GEAC meeting that approved GM Mustard's cultivation and sale was improperly conducted and lacked adequate representation. "The failure to assess the impact on public health and the environment is a gross violation of the principle of intergenerational equity and public interest," Justice Nagarathna stated.
She also noted the absence of indigenous studies on GM Mustard before its 2022 approval and suggested reforms in the GEAC's formation and the approval process for GM crops.
Justice Karol, however, highlighted the need to balance environmental concerns with scientific development. He found no arbitrariness in the GEAC's approval process, noting that all regulatory and approval aspects were in place. "The GEAC's composition ensures that bureaucratic views do not dominate," he concluded.
TAGS: Supreme Court split verdict GM Mustard commercial sale India Justice BV Nagarathna Justice Sanjay Karol GEAC approval indigenous studies environmental impact judicial review national policy Ministry of Environment HT Mustard DMH-11 PILs intergenerational equity
