Rajasthan HC Mandates Regulation of GM Foods Under Section 22 of FSSA: A Major Step for Public Health - 2025-10-13

The Silent Sentinel: Rajasthan HC Breaks Regulatory Stasis on Genetically Modified Foods

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 13, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court has stepped into the long-standing regulatory vacuum surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) foods in India. Addressing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Kritesh Oswal, the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit lambasted the apathy of the central authorities, ruling that the continued absence of safety standards for GM food constitutes a violation of the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A Journey from Vedic Wisdom to Statutory Vacuum

The Court opened its discourse by invoking the "Supreme Medicine" of food as described in ancient Vedic texts, emphasizing that food safety is not a mere privilege but a constitutional right. Despite clear legislative intent under Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSAI), 2006, the Central Government had failed to notify necessary regulations, forcing the Court to intervene to ensure that "corporate or commercial interests" do not override public health.

The litigation highlighted that while the import of GM edible oils has been ongoing since 2007 under the watch of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), there has been an absolute lack of food safety protocols mandated by the FSSAI.

The Arguments: A Clash of Compliance and Necessity

The Petitioner’s counsel argued that without regulations framed under Section 22 of the 2006 Act, permission for the sale, manufacture, or import of GM foods is "bad in law." Furthermore, the petitioner challenged Rule 6(7) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, arguing that labelling requirements are meaningless if the core products remain unmonitored.

The Respondents—Union of India and the FSSAI—admitted the regulatory void, citing "abeyance notifications" that allowed GEAC to continue oversight. They acknowledged that there is currently no finalized framework under Section 22 (2) for GM foods, but defended the existing labelling rules as purely procedural.

Legal Analysis: The Mandate of the Protective State

Citing the Supreme Court’s precedents in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and the Gene Campaign judgment, the Court established that when an act requires subordinate legislation for its effective implementation, courts are empowered to issue a writ of mandamus if the executive remains indolent.

The Rajasthan High Court held that the "precautionary principle" must govern the entry of GM organisms into the human food chain. Importantly, the Court observed that:

> "The framing of such regulations is not only important but critically necessary... the 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."

Key Observations

• "Any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
• "Where a statute expressly requires the formulation of rules or regulations to give effect to its provisions... this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to direct the State to frame the necessary subordinate legislation."
• "To permit corporate or commercial interests to override public health would be unjust and contrary to Constitutional ethos."

A Decisive Blueprint for Food Safety

The Court’s order acts as a strict corrective measure. Key directives include: 1. Drafting Regulations: The FSSAI and UOI must frame and notify GM food regulations under Section 22 of the 2006 Act within six months. 2. Import Restrictions: No edible item shall be imported into India without a "GM-Free" certificate issued by the exporting country’s competent authority. 3. Prohibition: The FSSAI and GEAC are restrained from granting new permissions for GM food manufacture or import until the final regulatory framework is in place. 4. Labelling: While upholding the validity of Rule 6(7) of the 2011 Rules, the Court reinforced that consumer choice relies on transparent labelling.

This ruling marks a turning point in Indian food policy, signaling to regulators that the "lackadaisical attitude" noted by Parliamentary Committees will no longer be tolerated under the shadow of the Constitution.