Supreme Court’s Split Verdict: GM Mustard Approval Sparks Controversy
In a landmark ruling that underscores ongoing debates in agricultural biotechnology, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict concerning the Centre’s 2022 decision to grant conditional approval for the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard. This decision has catalyzed a broader discussion about the regulation of GM crops in India, prompting calls for more rigorous national policy formulation.
Split Verdict Highlights Procedural and Policy Disputes
On July 23, 2024, the Supreme Court’s bench, consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, issued divergent opinions on the approval process for GM mustard hybrid DMH-11. The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), an entity under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), had recommended the environmental release of this transgenic mustard variety. This recommendation was subsequently approved by the Union Government on October 25, 2022.
Justice Nagarathna’s judgment scrutinized the procedural integrity of the GEAC’s decision. She criticized the approval process for not adequately considering recommendations from the Technical Expert Committee established by the apex court in 2012. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the GEAC’s decisions, made in October 2022, ignored essential inputs and failed to include a representative from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), thus overlooking potential health impacts on humans and animals.
In a detailed 260-page order, Justice Nagarathna articulated concerns that the approval process was marred by procedural flaws, thus violating the principle of public trust. She called for a review of the decision-making process, highlighting that key aspects related to public safety and environmental impact were not addressed.
National Policy on GM Crops: Court’s Directive
Despite the split in opinions, the bench unanimously agreed on the necessity for a comprehensive national policy regarding GM crops. The Court directed the Centre to formulate this policy with broad stakeholder consultation, including agricultural experts, biotechnology professionals, state governments, and farmer representatives. The policy aims to address the research, cultivation, trade, and commerce of GM crops within the country.
The Court’s directive underscores the importance of inclusivity and transparency in policy formulation. It mandates the MoEF&CC to conduct a national consultation within the next four months to develop this policy, ensuring that all expert opinions and potential conflicts of interest are thoroughly vetted.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that the regulations governing GM food, including GM edible oils, must comply with the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006. This includes strict adherence to packaging and labeling requirements to safeguard consumer interests.
Divergent Views on GM Mustard’s Future
Justice Sanjay Karol, in contrast, upheld the validity of the GEAC’s decision, arguing that the approval process was in line with existing rules and the precautionary principle. His separate 140-page verdict contended that the GEAC’s composition and decision-making were appropriate and that the conditional approval did not breach any legal principles.
Justice Karol supported the continuation of field trials for DMH-11 under stringent conditions, with the Union of India and statutory authorities mandated to monitor the trials closely. He stressed that any adverse changes in circumstances should prompt a review of the trials, ensuring that the conditions of approval are rigorously followed.
This difference in judicial perspectives reflects broader debates within India about the role of genetically modified organisms in agriculture. The split verdict highlights the complexity of balancing innovation with public safety and environmental protection.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s split verdict on the GM mustard approval reveals critical procedural and policy issues, calling for a comprehensive national policy on GM crops. While Justice Nagarathna criticized the approval process for procedural flaws and lack of public consultation, Justice Karol supported the GEAC’s decision, emphasizing the need for stringent trial monitoring. The Court’s unanimous directive for a national policy reflects a commitment to addressing the broader implications of GM crop regulation in India.
Key Learning Points
| Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Split Verdict on GM Mustard | The Supreme Court’s decision highlights procedural and policy disagreements. |
| Call for National Policy | Court directs the Centre to formulate a comprehensive policy on GM crops. |
| Procedural Criticisms | Justice Nagarathna cites flaws in the approval process and lack of public consultation. |
| Support for Field Trials | Justice Karol upholds the GEAC’s decision, supporting continued field trials under strict conditions. |
| Regulatory Compliance | Emphasis on adherence to the Food Safety and Standards Act for GM food products. |
Soumya Smruti Sahoo is a seasoned journalist with extensive experience in both international and Indian news writing. With a sharp analytical mind and a dedication to uncovering the truth, Soumya has built a reputation for delivering in-depth, well-researched articles that provide readers with a clear understanding of complex global and domestic issues. Her work reflects a deep commitment to journalistic integrity, making her a trusted source for accurate and insightful news coverage.
