Telangana High Court: Barring People with over Two Children From Polls Violates No Fundamental Right  ||  Del HC Clarifies That Breach of Promise to Marry is Not The Same as False Promise Amounting To Rape  ||  Delhi High Court Rules Law Students Cannot be Barred From Exams For Not Meeting Minimum Attendance  ||  Delhi HC: Only a Sessions Court, Not an Ilaqa Magistrate, Can Order Further Probe After Committal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Protecting Homebuyers’ Interests is Paramount in Real Estate Insolvency  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Can Freeze Accounts on Suspicion; Affected Party May Seek Magistrate’s Relief  ||  NCLAT: Claimants Must Prove Asset Ownership; Liquidator Need Not Establish Title of Assets in Custody  ||  NCLAT: Director’s Resignation Doesn’t Release Personal Guarantor from Continuing Guarantee Liability  ||  NCLAT: Delay Condonable When Composite Appeal Filed in Time is Refiled after Registry’s Objection  ||  Supreme Court: Upper Floors Can be Converted for Commercial Use Only after Paying Conversion Charges    

Gene Campaign & Another v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 545) - (Supreme Court) (23 Jul 2024)

Supreme Court delivered a Split verdict on commercial release of Genetically Modified Mustard

MANU/SC/0743/2024

Civil

The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard several PILs challenging the Central government’s decision to allow for commercial cultivation and release of Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard, christened ’HT Mustard DMH-11’, into the environment. In 2022, the GEAC had cleared a proposal for the commercial cultivation of GM mustard.

The primary question was whether commercial sale of GM Mustard should be allowed in India or not on which the Court rendered a split verdict. Justice Nagarathna while ruling against permitting commercial sale and release of GM Mustard in India observed that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) had approved GM Mustard sale without relying on any indigenous studies on the effect of GM Mustard in India and its possible environmental ramifications. On the Other hand, Justice Karol approved the commercial sale of GM Mustard and stated that the composition of the GEAC is in accordance with rules and therefore the approval granted by GEAC is by an expert body, so challenge cannot be allowed.

However, the Division Bench had consensus on the following aspects:

1. The Judicial Review of the decision taken by the bodies concerned in the matter of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is permissible.

2. Central Government is directed to evolve a National Policy regarding GM crops in the realm of research, cultivation, trade and commerce. Such a policy shall be formulated in consultation with all stakeholders, experts in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, State Governments, representatives of the farmers, etc.

3. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change shall conduct a national consultation, preferably within the next four months, with the aim of formulating the National Policy on GM crops. The State Governments shall be involved in evolving the National Policy on GM crops.

In the matter of importing GM food and more particularly GM edible oil, the respondent shall comply with the requirements of Section 23 of FSSA, 2006, which deals with packaging and labeling of foods.

Tags : GM MUSTARD   APPROVAL   NATIONAL POLICY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved