GENE CAMPAIGN vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2024
Case Title and Citation: GENE CAMPAIGN & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 2024 INSC 545 (Decided July 23, 2024)
Factual Background
The case originated from petitions filed by the NGO Gene Campaign and other citizens regarding the safety and regulatory oversight of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in India. Petitioners argued that the existing 1989 Rules governing genetically engineered organisms were inadequate and violated fundamental rights, including the right to a clean environment under Article 21. Earlier proceedings in the Supreme Court led to the constitution of a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) in 2012. The majority of the TEC found Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crops unsuitable for Indian agriculture and recommended their prohibition. In September 2015, the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) applied to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) seeking approval for the environmental release of the GM mustard hybrid, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), along with a biosafety dossier. Following internal expert committee reviews and receiving reports from governmental bodies, the GEAC, in its 147th meeting on October 18, 2022, recommended conditional environmental release of DMH-11, which the Union Government accepted on October 25, 2022. This approval, which included safeguards such as post-release monitoring, was challenged as being unlawful and violating established environmental principles.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Union Government’s decision, dated October 25, 2022, granting conditional approval for the environmental release of genetically modified Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), was in accordance with the law and established regulatory procedures.
- Whether the decision to approve the environmental release of DMH-11 violates the fundamental right to a safe and healthy environment protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the GEAC’s approval for DMH-11 contravenes the precautionary principle.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Division Bench delivered a split verdict regarding the validity of the conditional approval for the environmental release of DMH-11.
- Consensus: The Court unanimously agreed that judicial review of decisions concerning GM organisms is permissible. The Court also issued mandatory directions for the Union Government to establish a National Policy for GM crops in consultation with all stakeholders, including State Governments, and to ensure compliance with labelling requirements for imported GM food/oil under Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006.
- Split Verdict on DMH-11 Approval: Due to the difference in opinion concerning the validity of the conditional approval for DMH-11, the specific matter was directed to be placed before a larger bench for fresh consideration.
Reason for the Decision
The two Justices issued separate judgments articulating differing perspectives on the legality and scientific assessment of the DMH-11 approval:
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna (Invalidating the Approval): The approval process was flawed due to a lack of consultation with State Governments, despite agriculture being a State subject. The GEAC’s decision ignored previous expert recommendations and prematurely reversed its earlier stance that field studies (e.g., on honeybee impact) should be conducted prior to environmental release. She held that the GEAC exhibited procedural abnormalities and arbitrariness, accelerated by lateral intervention from the Ministry. The failure to adequately assess adverse effects on health, combined with the lack of transparency (refusing to publish the full biosafety dossier for public scrutiny), led to the conclusion that the decision violated the precautionary principle and the right to a safe and healthy environment under Article 21 [11, 43.2, 584].
- Justice Sanjay Karol (Upholding the Approval/Field Trials): The power granted to the GEAC to approve proposals includes the implicit authority to regulate the manner of approval, and thus reliance on expert sub-committees was a legitimate and necessary administrative function, not a delegation of essential duties. The GEAC’s decision was well-reasoned, based on multiple documents, and included sufficient safeguards, such as mandatory post-release monitoring. He argued that the ban on HT crops is purely a matter of public policy, and interfering with it would transgress the limits of judicial review. Allowing field trials to continue, subject to safeguards, aligns with the constitutional directive to develop a scientific temper and ensure sustainable development.
Conclusion
The conditional approval for the environmental release of DMH-11 remains unresolved, pending review by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. However, the Court reached consensus on the necessity for the Union Government to immediately initiate steps toward formulating a cohesive National Policy on GM crops and to enforce transparency and statutory compliance in the existing regulatory framework.
