SC gives split verdict on commercial sale of GM Mustard

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict on the commercial sale of Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard. A Division Bench, consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, issued separate judgments.

Justice Nagarathna opposed the commercial sale and release of GM Mustard, criticizing the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for approving it without relying on indigenous studies about its environmental impact in India. She deemed the approval process flawed and invalid.

In contrast, Justice Karol supported the GEAC's decision, stating that the committee's composition and approval process were compliant with regulations and were not arbitrary. He emphasized the need to balance environmental concerns with scientific advancement.

Both justices agreed on several points: judicial review of GEAC decisions is permissible, the Central government should develop a national policy for GM crops, and the Ministry of Environment should create this policy within four months. The case will now go before a larger Bench for a final decision on the commercial sale of GM Mustard.

The Court was hearing public interest litigations challenging the Central government's decision to permit the commercial cultivation and release of GM Mustard, which was approved by the GEAC and the Ministry of Environment in 2022. The split verdict necessitates that the Chief Justice of India form a larger Bench to resolve the issue.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized the need to protect the environment while pursuing development. She clarified that the Court is not reviewing the scientific documents presented in the case, as that is not within its purview. Instead, the Court focused on whether the approval for the commercial sale and release of GM Mustard in India was properly granted.

Justice Nagarathna found that the GEAC meeting that approved GM Mustard was improperly conducted and lacked proper representation. She concluded that the approval violated principles of public accountability and intergenerational equity and was against public interest.

She noted that GEAC did not rely on any indigenous studies regarding GM Mustard's release in India before granting approval in 2022. She issued directions on handling applications for cultivating GM crops and emphasized that environmental protection must be considered before granting any approval. She also called for the reformation of GEAC.

Conversely, Justice Karol highlighted the need to balance environmental concerns with scientific advancement. He found no arbitrariness in the approval process for GM Mustard, stating that the GEAC's composition and regulations were not arbitrary. He asserted that the committee's structure ensures that bureaucratic influence does not dominate.

Justice Karol concluded that the approval process was proper and aligned with existing regulations.