Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court pronounced a split verdict on a petition challenging the validity of the conditional approval granted for allowing the “environmental release” of Genetically Modified (GM) mustard. 

Key Findings of the Verdict 

Verdict given by Justice Nagarathna 

• Infringement of Right to Health: The approval process for GM mustard was deemed to be in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment.
• Disregard of Precautionary Principle: Justice Nagarathna criticized the government for failing to adhere to the precautionary principle, which mandates thorough risk assessment before introducing potentially hazardous technologies.
• Insufficient Scientific Basis: The decision to approve GM mustard was found to be based primarily on foreign research, without adequate consideration of India's unique agro-ecological conditions.
• Lack of Comprehensive Assessment: The approval process failed to adequately assess the potential impacts on public health, the environment, and future generations.

Background of the Case 

• In September 2015, Delhi University's Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) sought GEAC’s approval for the environmental release of the genetically engineered hybrid mustard – Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11).
• In May 2017, the GEAC recommended the environmental release of GM mustard.
• However, after receiving several representations, the Ministry of Environment sent the proposal back to the GEAC for re-examination in March 2018.
• After perusing all the data on toxicity, allergenicity, field trials and environmental safety studies, the GEAC recommended the environmental release of GM mustard in October 2022, which was accepted by the Union government. 
• However, the approval was challenged in the Supreme Court by The Coalition for a GM-Free India, an alliance of experts, scientists, farmers, and activists, citing environmental and public health concerns. 

Verdict given by Justice Sanjay 

• Upholding Regulatory Body but Emphasizing Independent Evaluation
  Justice Karol held that the GEAC’s process was “independent” and “reasoned”. He also held that environmental release and the following tests and trials were in line with “the development of a scientific temper” and abided by the precautionary principle.

Common Recommendations

• National Policy and Public Involvement: The court recommended developing a comprehensive national policy on GM crops, including public consultations. This policy should incorporate diverse viewpoints and ensure rigorous evaluation of GM technologies.
• Transparency and Compliance: The Court directed that all relevant studies be made publicly accessible and called for statutory rules to manage conflicts of interest. They also emphasized compliance with Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
  Section 23 primarily deals with the packaging and labelling of food products. It mandates specific standards for how food items should be packaged and what information must be displayed on the label. 

About GM Mustard

• GM mustard refers to a genetically modified variety of mustard developed through genetic engineering techniques. 
• Specifically, it involves the use of the barnase-barstar gene system to produce mustard hybrids. 
• This technology aims to overcome the self-pollinating nature of mustard and facilitate the creation of high-yielding hybrid varieties.
• Bacillus thuringiensis cotton (or Bt cotton) was introduced in 2002 and remains the only approved commercialised GM crop in India.

Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC)

• The GEAC is the apex body in India responsible for regulating activities involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 
• It was established under the "Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells" notified under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.