CHENNAI: A significant verdict of the Supreme Court on July 23 that got buried in the avalanche of reportage on the General Budget that day was a split verdict on the Centre’s decision to grant conditional approval to the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard or Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11).
The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), a statutory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), had in October 2022 approved the GM mustard’s environmental release. Twenty years before that, it had cleared the commercial cultivation of Bt cotton in 2002. At present, Bt cotton is the only GM crop cultivated in India.
The GEAC in October 2023 held that the environmental release of DMH-11 for its seed production and testing complies with the guidelines laid down by the Indian Council of Agriculture. Since then, several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision.
While Justice B V Nagarathna was opposed to the GEAC decision, Justice Sanjay Karol took a contrary view. The matter has since been placed before the Chief Justice of India to sent it to a larger bench.
Justice Nagarathna said no representative of the Indian Council of Medical Research was present at the October 18, 2022 meeting of the GEAC. “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,” she contended.
“The failure to adequately assess health and environmental impact of GM crops seriously infringes upon intergenerational equity as it potentially endangers the ability of future citizens to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health,” she ruled.
The judge added that the GEAC ignored the recommendations made by the Technical Expert Committee on GM crops. That committee constituted by the Supreme Court in 2012 held that commercial release of herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops should be banned in India.
Justice Nagrathna said: “This Court’s jurisprudence on the right to a safe and healthy environment is a firewall against unscrupulous and unsustainable decision-making. It encapsulates a concomitant duty for the State, as understood in light of Articles 48 and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.”
She also faulted the GEAC for not making DMH-11’s biosafety dossier, which contains primary data on the toxicity and allergenicity, universally available to the affected parties. The dossier, however, is open for physical inspection at the MoEF&CC headquarters.
While the petitioner wanted it uploaded online to enable its examination by independent experts, the Centre said no country with a functional regulatory system puts the full dossier online, so as to protect intellectual property rights.
Justice Sanjay Karol, in his divergent opinion, wrote that a ban on DMH-11 is not warranted as it is a policy decision. He also opined that the decision to grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of mind on the part of the GEAC, which itself is an expert body.
While both judges gave divergent opinions, they concurred that the judicial review of both the October 18 and October 25 orders of GEAC is permissible. They directed the Centre to draft a national policy on research, cultivation, trade and commerce of GM crops in the country.
“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.
Centre’s position
With India facing a shortage of edible oils and having to rely heavily on imports, the cultivation of GM mustard could bring relief. Earlier this year, the Centre told the Supreme Court that GM mustard will make quality edible oil cheaper for the common man and benefit the national interest by reducing imports. “Interests which are against India gaining food security and reducing foreign dependence are behind these PILs [public interest litigation petitions] against GM Mustard,” the government told the court
Risk factors
Ever since genetically modified crops were first introduced in the 1990s, they were met with stiff opposition. Activists claim consuming DMH-11 can pose unknown health effects. Besides, its cultivation may harm beneficial insects and soil microbes that are essential to sustain agriculture. More importantly, activists say, it may lead to the emergence of herbicide-resistant superweeds that could destroy agriculture and damage India’s food security.