Supreme Court of India issues split verdict on GM mustard release, orders national GMO policy

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a divided ruling regarding a petition challenging the validity of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (GEAC) decision from October 18, 2022, and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change’s subsequent decision from October 25, which permitted the environmental release of genetically modified mustard. The Court has instructed the government to create a national policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in collaboration with state governments, independent experts, and farming organizations.

Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjoy Karol heard arguments from Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, as well as advocates Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh. They had reserved their judgment in January, and a detailed opinion will be released later today.

Justice Nagarathna criticized the GEAC’s approval process as flawed and breaching public trust, leading her to overturn the 2022 decision by the expert panel. Conversely, Justice Karol supported the GEAC’s decision. Following this split decision by the two-judge bench, the case will be referred to a three-judge bench for further review.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that research from other countries should not serve as the sole basis for approving the environmental release of GM crops. She noted that objections from experts and scholars initially led GEAC to delay its decision. She expressed concerns about the hasty approval potentially causing negative economic and environmental impacts, citing a lack of studies by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on GMOs.

Both justices agreed that a comprehensive policy for GM crops should be developed by the government. They ordered the Centre to establish this policy within four months, after consulting all relevant stakeholders.

While Justice Nagarathna argued that insufficient health impact assessments undermine future generations’ rights, Justice Karol maintained that the conditional approval for field trials aligns with a progressive developmental strategy.

The Supreme Court was addressing separate petitions from activist Aruna Rodrigues and the NGO Gene Campaign, who sought a halt on the environmental release of GMOs until a thorough, transparent biosafety protocol is established and made publicly available. They argued that testing should occur in controlled environments rather than open fields to prevent potential contamination.