Why in the news?

A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on Tuesday, July 23, regarding the “environmental release” of Genetically Modified (GM) mustard.

About GM Mustard Crop 

• Development and Approval Process: On September 15, 2015, the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) at Delhi University sought approval from the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for the environmental release of GM mustard DMH-11.
• Biosafety Dossier: The CGMCP submitted a biosafety dossier to the GEAC, which created a sub-committee to examine its contents. After revisions, the sub-committee submitted its report, inviting comments in September 2016.
• GEAC Recommendations: On May 11, 2017, the GEAC recommended the environmental release of GM mustard, allowing field tests to assess the crop’s effects. However, the Ministry of Environment sent the proposal back for re-examination in March 2018 after receiving several representations.
• Deferred Tests: The GEAC directed the CGMCP to examine the effects of GM mustard on honey bees and soil microbial diversity, but these tests were deferred through 2020-21.
  • The GEAC-appointed expert committee found that honeybees do not discriminate between other GM crops such as genetically engineered canola.

What is the case before the Supreme Court?

• Split Verdict: The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict regarding the approval for the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard, specifically the hybrid DMH-11. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol had differing opinions on the legality of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (GEAC) decision-making process.
• Justice Nagarathna’s Opinion: Justice Nagarathna held that the GEAC’s approval was flawed and did not follow the necessary procedures, particularly failing to conduct promised field tests. She emphasized that the approval violated public trust and the precautionary principle, which is essential for protecting the environment and public health.
• Justice Karol’s Opinion: In contrast, Justice Karol argued that the GEAC’s decision was valid and aligned with the development of scientific temper. He stated that field trials are necessary to assess the environmental safety of GM mustard and that the decision-making process was independent and reasoned.
• Unanimous Directives: Despite the split decision, both judges agreed on the need for the Union government to formulate a national policy regarding GM crops. This policy should involve consultations with various stakeholders, including experts, farmers, and state governments.
• Case referred to larger bench: The case will be referred to a larger bench for further adjudication due to the differing opinions. The Supreme Court directed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) should conduct a national consultation within four months to develop this policy.
• Concerns Raised: Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the GEAC did not consider the long-term effects of GM mustard on health and the environment, while Justice Karol noted the importance of conducting field trials under strict safeguards to monitor the crop’s impact.

Conclusion: The Union government should formulate a detailed and inclusive national policy on genetically modified crops. This policy should be based on extensive consultations with experts, farmer representatives, state governments, and other stakeholders to ensure a balanced approach that considers scientific, environmental, and public health perspectives.

Mains PYQ: 

Q  What are the present challenges before crop diversification? How do emerging technologies provide an opportunity for crop diversification? (2021)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now