1. Field testing of newly developed plant DMH-11 permitted subject to precautions. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1554
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K.SABHARWAL, CJI., THAKKER, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.
Aruna Rodrigues and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 260 of 2005.
Decided on : 15-12-2006
The court emphasized the precautionary approach regarding genetic use restriction technologies, directing a regulatory committee to provide independent expert opinions on toxicity and environmental impact before deciding whether to permit or stop the field testing of genetically modified plants.
Headnote:(A) Convention on Biological Diversity - Clause (23) - Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT) - Field testing of genetically modified plants - Precautionary approach - Recommendation that products incorporating GURT should not be approved for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing - Issues raised regarding the toxicity of specific proteins used as conditional suicide genes which may be toxic to human cell lines and mammalian kidneys - Potential risk of permanent escape of genes and other environmental damages - Direction issued to the regulatory committee to examine the impact of field tests in detail with reference to expert opinions. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An interim order had permitted the field testing of a newly developed plant variety. A petition was subsequently filed seeking the uprooting of these plants, citing the precautionary approach recommended under an international convention regarding genetic use restriction technologies. It was contended that certain genes used in the process act as potent cell poisons and pose risks to human and mammalian cells, necessitating the cessation of field tests to prevent gene escape and other damages.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the applicant claims to have modified the technology to avoid the use of genetic use restriction technologies, this claim needs verification. It was deemed appropriate to obtain an independent expert opinion from the regulatory committee to assess the impact of the ongoing field tests.
Issues: Whether the field testing of the genetically modified plant should be stopped and the plants uprooted based on the precautionary approach and evidence of potential toxicity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that before deciding on the prayer to uproot the plants, it is necessary for the regulatory committee to examine in detail the impact of the field tests, specifically considering the expert opinions on toxicity and the use of genetic use restriction technologies.
Result: Matter listed for consideration in January 2007.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to field testing citing GURT risks and barnase toxicity; applicant denies using GURT. (Para 2 )
3. Court directs GEAC to examine field test impact with reference to expert opinion. (Para 2 )
4. GEAC directed to examine field test impact; matter to be listed in January 2007. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. What precautionary approach applies when reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies is absent?
Products incorporating such technologies should not be approved or field tested until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
Y.K.Sabharwal, CJI., Thakker and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
By order dated 13th October, 2006 on I.A. Nos.5 and 6, we permitted the field testing on experiment basis of the applicants' newly developed plant DMH-11, subject to the applicant-Delhi University taking all precautions as mentioned in the application and subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court for uprooting the plants. That order was passed as an interim measure.
2. Today, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to clause (23) of the Convention on Biological Diversity which, inter alia, recommends that in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies [GURT], without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by parties or field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing. Further, reliance has been placed on the expert opinion of Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Jack Heinemann and Professor Dough Gurian Sherman to contend that barnase unaccompanied by its specific inhibitor barstar is known to be a potent cell poison. Traces of barnase are toxic to the rat kidney and to human cell lines. Barnase is actually being exploited as a conditional suicide gene to cause cell death in mammalian and human cells when it is induced, and cell toxicity caused by barnase may be affected by RNA interference. Relying on these experts, learned counsel contends that, as indicated in the order dated 13th October, 2006, direction be issued for uprooting the plant otherwise risk is being run for permanent escape of the gene and other damages which it may cause. Before we consider this prayer further, we deem it appropriate to direct G.E.A.C. to examine in detail the impact of the field test being carried also with reference to the expert opinion. We may, however, note that the applicant's case is that it has modified its technology and is not using GURT. We say nothing on this aspect. We expect independent expert opinion from G.E.A.C. on this subject.
3. For consideration, list the matter in January, 2007.
