Supreme Court delivers split verdict on commercial cultivation and sale of GM Mustard
The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the approval given by the Union Government to release genetically modified mustard.
According to Live Law, Justice BV Nagarathna quashed the approval given by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee and the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Justice Sanjay Karol upheld the same.
In view of the difference of opinion, the bench directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench to hear the matter afresh, Live Law said.
During the hearing of the petition, the Union Government had agreed to not implement the decision.
The court was dealing with a bath of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the Union Government’s decision to commercially cultivate and release genetically modified mustard into the environment. This is the first time a transgenic food crop is planned to be cultivated in India, Live Law noted.
Justice Nagarathna, Bar and Bench reported, emphasised that it is important to ensure that the environment is protected while pursuing development.
She added that the Court is not conducting any review of the scientific documents produced during the case, as the Court is not the appropriate authority to do so. Therefore, the focus of the Court was on whether approval was properly granted for the commercial sale of GM Mustard and its release to the Indian environment.
She concluded that the approval granted for the sale of GM Mustard was against the principles of public accountability.
“I also view that the failure to adequately assess the effect on public health and environment is in gross violation of principle of intergenerational equity. It is also in violation of public interest as well,” Justice Nagarathna said.
On the other hand, Justice Karol, according to Bar and Bench, observed that there was no arbitrariness in the manner in which approval was granted for the sale of GM Mustard.
“On an independent analysis, I do not find any aspect of manifest arbitrariness in the effect of GEAC granted approval. All the aspects of monitoring regulations, approval all exist. In none of the rules governing GEAC and its composition, (do I find) anything manifestly arbitrary. On the composition of GEAC, I find that constitution of this committee ensures that bureaucrats and their views do not overpower anything,” he held.
This article has been republished from The New Indian Express.