Tricky imperative
On July 23, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the validity of the Centre’s 2022 decision granting conditional approval for the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard crops. The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, while differing in their conclusions, collectively urged the Centre to formulate a comprehensive national policy on GM crops for research, cultivation, trade, and commerce.
It may be recalled that in October 2022, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) recommended the environmental release of the transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11, developed by the University of Delhi’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants. This decision was subsequently approved by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. However, the Supreme Court’s recent verdict is indicative of deep-seated concerns and divided opinions on the matter.
Justice BV Nagarathna struck down the approval of GM mustard, citing violations of Article 21, the Precautionary Principle, and the doctrine of public trust. She criticised the reliance on foreign studies and the lack of indigenous research, emphasising the need for environmental protection and inter-generational equity. Justice Nagarathna highlighted that the approval process ignored the recommendations of the SC Technical Expert Committee and failed to adequately assess the impacts on public health and the environment. Additionally, she is also reported to have highlighted the absence of eight of the 20 GEAC members at the time of the approval, including the member of ICMR—the representative of the Union Health Ministry. She termed the approval process to be ‘vitiated’.
In contrast, Justice Sanjay Karol upheld the validity of GEAC’s approval process, concluding that there was no illegality in its regulations and functioning. He recognised the GEAC as an expert body operating within constitutional bounds and noted that the conditional approval was based on multiple documents, not just the expert committee’s comments. However, he, too, highlighted the importance of human health tests in risk assessment and the necessity of conducting independent studies. Justice Carol also underscored the need for creation of a national policy and the inclusion of public participation in the decision-making process.
It may be noted here that Mustard cultivation dominates Indian agriculture. Mustard oilseed production had increased from 8.6 million tonnes (mt) in 2020-21 to 11 mt in 2021-22, and 11.35 mt in 2022-23, while the area under cultivation, too, grew from 6.70 million hectares in 2020-21 to 8.8 million hectares in 2022-23. Yet, the domestic demand is such that India has to rely on imports of edible oils. Reports suggest that India meets 60 per cent of its edible oil demand through imports.
In such a scenario, the Centre’s push for expediting GM Mustard production is completely understood. However, as both the judges have iterated, the development of a national policy on GM crops, informed by extensive consultation and independent research, is imperative. This policy should balance the potential benefits of GM technology with the need to safeguard public health, the environment, and the interests of future generations. As the case moves to a three-judge bench, the focus should remain on achieving a sustainable and equitable resolution that aligns with India’s unique agricultural requirements and socio-economic needs.
