1. Writ petitions challenging approval for environmental release of transgenic mustard DMH-11 under precautionary principle and public trust doctrine. (Para 4 , 5 , 15 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Gene Campaign and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 840 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 4086 of 2006, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2007, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2016
Decided On : 23-07-2024
1. Writ petitions challenging approval for environmental release of transgenic mustard DMH-11 under precautionary principle and public trust doctrine. (Para 4 , 5 , 15 )
2. Whether DMH-11 qualifies as HT crop and whether GEAC approval violated precautionary principle and public trust doctrine, with respondents asserting regulatory compliance and national interest. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Approval for environmental release of DMH-11 vitiated for violating precautionary principle and public trust doctrine; writ petitions dismissed. (Para 43 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 54 )
Yes, the precautionary principle is a foundational doctrine of Indian environmental law and applies to GM crop approvals. Activities disturbing nature must proceed only upon ex-ante assessment of consequences, and the approval for DMH-11 violated this principle. (Para 45 , 48 )
Yes, the court found the approval was in gross violation of the public trust doctrine, which prohibits the executive from converting natural resources into private ownership or commercial use without authorization for public good and public interest. (Para 3 , 43 )
Yes, the court accepted DMH-11 possesses HT characteristics as admitted by the Union of India, and the TEC Report also classified it as an HT crop, raising concerns about impacts on sustainable agriculture, rural livelihoods, and biodiversity. (Para 20 , 38 , 41 , 46 )
Environmental bodies must function with credibility, transparency, independence from commercial incentives, and robust infrastructure. Constitutional courts must monitor their proper institutionalisation to ensure the environment and ecology are protected and enriched. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
Yes, under the precautionary principle and binding obligations under Article 14(1)(b) of the CBD and Article 26 of the CPB, GEAC is duty-bound to sanction long-term chronic and intergenerational studies before approving GM crops for environmental release. (Para 45 , 46 )
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
| Table of Contents |
| Acronyms |
| Preface: |
| Bird’s eye view of the controversy: |
| Pleadings: |
| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 840 of 2016: Civil Appeal No. 4086 of 2006: |
| Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005: |
| Significant Orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions: |
| Constitution of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC): |
| Final Report of TEC: |
| Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Agriculture’s Report on “Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops - Prospects and Effects” - 2012: |
| Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests’ Report titled “Genetically Modified Crops and its impact on Environment” - 2017: |
| Conditional approval by Government of India for Environmental Release of DMH-11: |
| Sub-committee meetings: |
| Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioners: |
| Additional Affidavit of Union of India: |
| Submissions: |
| Submissions of the petitioners: |
| Submissions of the Respondents: |
| Submissions of Learned Solicitor General: |
| Reply Arguments: |
| Points for Consideration: |
| Legal Framework: |
| Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act, 1986): |
| 1989 Rules: |
| Regulatory Framework: |
| Constitutional Court and the Environmental Rule of Law: |
| Public Trust Doctrine: |
| Precautionary Principle: |
| Analysis and Findings: |
| Re: Point No. 1: Whether GEAC approval dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 for the environmental release of DMH-11 is in accordance with law? |
| Public Trust Doctrine: |
| Re: Point No. 2: Whether the decision to grant approval for environmental release of DMH-11 violates the right to safe and healthy environment under Article 21? |
| Right to safe and healthy Environment: |
| Re: Point No. 3: Whether GEAC’s grant of approval dated 18.10.2022 and the decision dated 25.10.2022 for the environmental release of DMH-11 violate the precautionary principle? |
| Precautionary Principle: |
| Conclusion: |
Acronyms
| AFES | Assessment of Food/Feed and Environmental Safety |
| AICRP | All India Coordinated Research Project |
| ASHA | Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture |
| BG-II | Bollgard-II |
| BRAI | Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India |
| BRL | Bio-safety Research Level |
| BSU | Bio-safety Support Unit |
| Bt | Bacillus thuringiensis |
| CAC | Codex Alimentarius Commission |
| CBD | Convention on Biological Diversity |
| CCMB | Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology |
| CGMCP | Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants |
| CIB&RC | Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee |
| CPB | Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety |
| CSIR | Council of Scientific and Industrial Research |
| DARE | Department of Agricultural Research and Education |
| DBT | Department of Biotechnology |
| DGFT | Directorate General of Foreign Trade |
| DLC | District Level Committee |
| DMH-11 | Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 |
| DoAC | Department of Agriculture and Cooperation |
| DRMR | Directorate of Rapeseed and Mustard Research |
| ECHR | European Convention on Human Rights |
| ERA | Environmental Risk Assessment |
| FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization |
| FSSA, 2006 | Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 |
| FSSAI | Food Safety and Standards Authority of India |
| GE | Genetically Engineered |
| GEAC | Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee |
| GEF | Global Environment Facility |
| GEO | Genetically Engineered Organism |
| GM | Gene Modification or Genetically Modified |
| GMO | Genetically Modified Organisms |
| HPV | Human Papilloma Virus |
| HT | Herbicide Tolerant or Tolerance |
| IAASTD | International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Dev |
gpt-4
The absence of a regulatory framework for genetically modified foods under Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act violates the right to life and health, necessitating immediate legislative a....
The insistence in Ext.P8 office memorandum for prior clearance from the Standing Committee for projects within 10 kilometres from National Parks was unsustainable in law as it did not follow the proc....
Environmental Clearance – Where adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval outweigh consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and establishment co....
(1) Court cannot be permitted to usurp functions assigned to the Executive, Legislature or subordinate legislature – Courts cannot issue directions to Legislature for enacting laws in a particular ma....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exemption granted for the removal of ordinary earth for linear projects was found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Const....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top