SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance  ||  SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property  ||  Raj HC: Having Different Age Criteria For Contractual and Regular Appointments is Unconstitutional  ||  Delhi HC: Registered Property Title Prevails over Claims Based on Oral Family Settlements  ||  Gauhati HC: Only A Family Court Can Grant A Divorce under Muslim Law, Not A Civil Judge  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Compel Lawyers to Disclose Sources of Documents Filed on Clients' Instructions  ||  SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income  ||  SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes  ||  SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties  ||  SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order    

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