The apex court stated it will determine what is best for the nation in a “highly technical” and scientific matter
Photo: iStock On January 18, 2024, the Supreme Court concluded its proceedings concerning the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard and deferred its decision, reported legal news website LiveLaw.
A newly-formed bench, consisting of justices BV Nagarthan and Sanjay Karol, heard arguments from advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing the petitioners, as well as from Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The apex court instructed both parties to present their written submissions by January 22.
During the previous hearing on January 12, the court had inquired why the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) had not referred to the reports of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court on matters related to biosafety of GM crops.
On January 17, the SC acknowledged that the GM crop issue is "highly technical" and scientific in nature and expressed its intention to make a decision on the environmental release of GM mustard in the interest of the country.
Bhushan informed the court on January 17, “Once you allow open plantations of GM Mustard it will contaminate all other varieties of mustard...there will not be any organic mustard left. India has a huge potential of exporting organic food, it will all go.”
Bhushan cited instances of unlawful cultivation of herbicide-tolerant cotton and raised concerns about contamination, even when experiments are conducted in small areas with careful conditions.
He pointed out that the provisions under the Food Safety Act prohibit the import of all GM products, and regulations for such products, have not yet been established.
On January 18, Mehta argued that open-field trials are scheduled to take place in eight locations, each with a plot of 400-500 metres, under close supervision.
He informed the court that this is a compulsory procedure and stated, “It is for petitioners to satisfy the court what they would gain or where is the public interest in restricting trials at remaining two sites.”
The court had imposed a halt on environmental trials after the petitioners sought the intervention of the apex court in the matter.
Mehta also mentioned that India is importing and consuming substantial quantities of edible oil derived from GM oilseeds. “We should have indigenous production so that we have food security and less dependency on foreign market imports,” he stated.
He added that the court is the custodian of rights, “On one side it has alleged environmental impact...on the other, people's right to basic foods (edible oil).”
The bench stated that they had thoroughly listened to the arguments of learned counsels for the petitioners, the attorney general, and others, and the judgment is pending.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.