NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved