SC rules against commercial sale and release of GM mustard

In a split verdict, the Supreme Court July 23, 2024 ruled against approval of the commercial sale and release of genetically modified mustard in India at present.

A division of bench comprising of justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol announced two separate judgments for the matter that was ongoing for the past 20 years in the Gene Campaign vs Union of India and Others case.

The Coalition for a GM-Free India, consisting of experts, scientists, farmers, and activists, expressed their approval of Justice Nagarathna's observations and conclusions in a press statement.

“The senior judge on the Bench concluded that the processing of the application and approval of GM mustard was violative of Article 21, of the Precautionary Principle, of the doctrine of public trust and was ignoring the recommendations of the SC Technical Expert Committee, etc,” it read.

Justice Nagarathna further said the GM mustard approval infringes on inter-generational equity, according to the statement. “She pointed out that the Expert Committee appointed in 2022 gave diametrically opposite views to that of another Committee and relied on foreign studies while dipping into scientific literature, as an illustration,” the press note stated.

Justice Nagarathna observed that the approval of the GM Mustard sale was permitted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) on the basis of foreign research and not indigenous studies about the impacts of GM Mustard in India without considering its environmental ramifications.

“Only foreign research studies available globally have been used to make recommendations. When the applicability is on India, research studies conducted indigenously must have been taken note of but nothing has been relied upon. In view of this, I say that approval of 18 /10 and 25 / 10 is vitiated and expert committee report of 2022 is not binding,” said Justice Nagarathna.

She also underlined that the environment must be protected while pursuing the development. The justice also said the approval for cultivation and commercial sale of the GM Mustard did not follow due procedures. 

“I also view that the failure to adequately assess the effect on public health and environment is in gross violation of principle of intergenerational equity. It is also in violation of public interest as well,” Justice Nagarathna was quoted. 

The Coalition for a GM Free India stated that Justice Sanjay Karol found no illegality in the GEAC regulations and their functioning. Nevertheless, he emphasized the importance of human health tests in risk assessment for decision-making and called for the initiation of independent studies.

“The composition of the GEAC is in accordance with rules and therefore constitutional challenge will fail. The approval granted by GEAC is by an expert body and therefore, challenge to such approval cannot be allowed. It will fail,” Justice Karol said.

“On an independent analysis, I do not find any aspect of manifest arbitrariness in the effect of GEAC granted approval. All the aspects of monitoring regulations, approval all exist. In none of the rules governing GEAC and its composition, (do I find) anything manifestly arbitrary. On the composition of GEAC, I find that constitution of this committee ensures that bureaucrats and their views do not overpower anything,” Justice Karol observed.

The Coalition for GM Free India appreciated Justice Karol's remarks on conducting studies and the necessity of making these study reports publicly accessible. He also emphasised the importance of including public participation in the decision-making process. Additionally, he called for the formulation of a national policy on the matter within four months.

“Justice Karol also commented on the need for state-of-the-art labo ratories and other required infrastructure to be set up. The Bench concluded that judicial review of various regulatory decisions and the regime is permissible,” the press statement said.

The coalition, however, expressed concerns that the Bench did not make a definitive conclusion on whether Delhi University's GM Mustard is herbicide tolerant.

Kavitha Kuruganti, social activist and member of the coalition, said, “The Coalition now calls upon the Government to implement those conclusions and directions that are common to both the judges’ verdicts.”

Kuruganti mentioned that in addition to establishing a national policy through public consultations, both judges have called for the creation of statutory rules to address conflicts of interest.

She mentioned that the judges also requested that all studies be made publicly available, which the regulators had been avoiding despite previous court orders requiring it.

“They asked for independent studies to be conducted for risk assessment. The Bench also directed the FSSAI to ensure compliance to Sec.23 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006,” she stated. 

The issue of whether GM Mustard should be commercially sold will now be referred to a larger bench of the court.