SC orders status quo on approval to GM mustard
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response to an application seeking moratorium on the release of genetically modified (GM) mustard even as the Centre assured there will be no “precipitative action” from its end till November 10, the next date of hearing.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response to an application seeking moratorium on the release of genetically modified (GM) mustard even as the Centre assured there will be no “precipitative action” from its end till November 10, the next date of hearing.
The hearing of the matter came at a crucial juncture as the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC) on October 25 granted clearance to the environmental release of GM Mustard. As part of field trials, they were to be placed at the facilities of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) at various locations.
A bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, while dealing with two public interest litigations (PIL) filed by Gene Campaign and a group of activists led by Aruna Rodrigues, asked the Centre about the present position on GM Mustard. An application was moved in the petition filed by Rodrigues and others in 2016 and 2021, opposing open field trials or commercial release of herbicide tolerant (HT) crops, including GM mustard.
Also read: Can’t deny citizens grounds for refusing security clearance: SC tells Centre
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that the MoEFCC had taken a decision on October 25 for the release of GM mustard. She pointed out that the same received the approval of the government expert agency, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), on October 18. When the court wished to know the present status, ASG Bhati said that the field trials will be conducted at various ICAR campuses situated across the country.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Rodrigues, informed the court that a committee of experts formed by the Supreme Court in 2012, called the technical expert committee (TEC), had recommended a total ban on all HT crops. Bhushan said that his application needs to be heard before any approval for field trial of such crops is permitted.
He quoted the TEC report that said, “The major concern with HT approaches is the excessive reliance on increased amounts of one or two herbicides which results in strong selective pressure for the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds and a negative impact on sustainability.” The TEC found these crops “unsustainable” and “unsuitable” for India, noting that the herbicides sprayed on HT crops could cause cancer.
At this, the bench asked the Centre if it could assure that no “precipitative action” is taken till the next hearing. ASG Bhati assured the court on this and also sought time to respond to the application filed by the petitioners as the application filed in 2016 was not available on record.
The bench then adjourned the case to November 10 while allowing the Centre to file its response. In view of the categorical statement made by the law officer, the court did not pass any order directing status quo.
Also read: IOA elections to be held on December 10: SC
The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been engaging the attention of the top court since 2004 when the first PIL by Gene Campaign was filed followed by petitions by Rodrigues and others who approached the court in 2005. The PILs sought transparency in the results of field trials conducted on GM crops and demanded that a comprehensive and rigorous biosafety protocol be put in place by GEAC before the grant of clearance to any GMOs.
According to Rodrigues, over 25 countries have banned GMOs, including France, Germany, Switzerland and Russia, while substantial restrictions on GMOs exist in more than 60 countries. The application demanded an inquiry into the approval process for GMOs.
