"Constitutional Imperative": Rajasthan HC Halts All GM Food Approvals, Mandates Regulations Within Six Months

JAIPUR – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for food safety and public health, the Rajasthan High Court has restrained all authorities, including the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), from granting any permission for the sale, manufacture, distribution, or import of Genetically Modified (GM) foods until comprehensive regulations are framed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit, hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Kritesh Oswal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , invoked Article 21 of the Constitution and the "Precautionary Principle" to address what it termed a "paradoxical" situation where GM food imports were permitted despite a nearly two-decade-long regulatory vacuum. The court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the FSSAI and the Union of India to frame and notify the requisite regulations under Section 22 of the 2006 Act, preferably within six months.

The judgment underscored that food safety is not a mere market issue but a fundamental right. “Food safety, cannot be seen as a mere regulatory or market issue, rather it’s a constitutional imperative enshrined under Article 21 aimed at protecting public health and securing a dignified quality life to every citizen,” the Bench observed.

The Core Legal Conundrum: A Statute Rendered "Otiose"

The PIL, filed by Kritesh Oswal and others, brought to the court's attention the glaring inaction of the Central Government and FSSAI in implementing Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This provision explicitly prohibits the manufacture, distribution, sale, or import of any GM articles of food except in accordance with regulations made under the Act. The petitioners argued that despite the legislative intent to create a special regime for GM foods, the failure to frame these foundational regulations has rendered the statute's protective mandate "nugatory" and "unenforceable."

The court expressed its astonishment at this legislative gap, noting its severe consequences. “It is astonishing that while the issue of genetically modified organisms in edible products is a matter of significant concern, yet the relevant regulations have not been finalized and notified by the Central Government,” the court stated. This regulatory failure, it noted, has allowed the GEAC to approve GM edible oil imports under "Abeyance Notifications," creating a backdoor for GM products to enter the Indian market without the specific safety assessments envisioned by the FSSA.

The Bench held that this "continued inaction has rendered Explanation 2 of Section 22 virtually otiose and, more gravely, has deprived the citizens of their fundamental right to food safety, an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Invoking Article 21 and the Precautionary Principle

The court firmly anchored its decision in the constitutional right to life and health under Article 21. It agreed with the petitioners' contention that permitting GM food imports without scientific impact assessments on human health was a direct violation of the Right to Health.

Delving into the potential risks, the court highlighted the global scientific debate surrounding GM foods. “Research has indicated that GMOs in food products may lead to various health concerns, including toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immunosuppression, cancer, and nutritional deficiencies,” the judgment reads.

In this context, the court invoked the "Precautionary Principle," arguing that the need for a robust regulatory framework is rooted in this principle. The introduction of novel genetic constructs into the human diet, it reasoned, warrants thorough and rigorous safety testing before widespread consumption. The court lamented that despite the regulatory regime for GM foods beginning with the Rules of 1989, its execution has been inconsistent, creating "substantial gaps that put public confidence and food safety at risk."

Quoting ancient Vedic scriptures like the Taittiriya and Chandogya Upanishads on the centrality of food to life and consciousness, the court philosophically reinforced its legal finding that "access to safe and nutritious food is not a privilege but an inalienable right essential for human dignity and existence."

Clarifying the Roles of FSSAI and GEAC

A key aspect of the ruling was the clarification of the distinct jurisdictions of FSSAI and GEAC. The court observed that GEAC's regulatory scope is limited to environmental safety, whereas the crucial domain of food safety falls squarely within the purview of FSSAI under the 2006 Act.

The Bench determined that Section 22's mandate is unequivocal: no approval for GM food-related activities can be granted unless it is in accordance with regulations framed under that very section. The existence of such regulations is, therefore, a sine qua non —an essential condition—for any valid approval.

Consequently, the court concluded that in the absence of these regulations, no authority, including the GEAC, can lawfully permit the sale, manufacture, or import of GM foods in India. This finding effectively freezes all current and future approvals until the FSSAI and the Centre fulfill their statutory duty.

A Mandamus to Legislate: A Justified Exception

The court acknowledged the general principle that its writ jurisdiction does not extend to issuing a mandamus to the State to enact legislation. However, it carved out a critical exception, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam . This exception applies where the failure to exercise rule-making power renders the parent legislation unimplementable.

Finding the present case to be a "serious lapse in the discharge of statutory obligations," the court deemed it necessary to intervene. It asserted that a "Constitutional Court cannot remain a passive spectator" and issued a direct mandate to the FSSAI and the Union of India to frame the required regulations within a stipulated timeframe.

Comprehensive Directions Issued by the Court

To ensure the immediate and future protection of public health, the High Court issued a comprehensive set of five key directions:

• Implementation of Section 22: The FSSAI and the Union of India are to implement Section 22 of the FSSA in its "true letter and spirit" by providing safety standards for GM foods in a time-bound manner.
• Framing of Regulations: The authorities must frame and notify the necessary regulations for GM food articles under Section 22 within a period of six months.
• Moratorium on Approvals: The FSSAI and GEAC are explicitly restrained from granting any permissions for the sale, manufacture, distribution, or import of GM foodstuffs until the regulations are in effect.
• Mandatory "GM-Free" Certification for Imports: The FSSAI and the Union of India must ensure no edible item is imported without a "GM-Free Certificate" from the competent authority of the exporting country.
• Compliance by Port Authorities: Customs and port authorities across Rajasthan are directed to ensure strict compliance with the court's orders.

The decision represents a powerful judicial intervention to safeguard public health against regulatory apathy and ensures that the legislative intent behind the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is finally realized.