Split verdict by the Supreme Court on the Genetically Modified (GM) mustard

Source: The post split verdict by the Supreme Court on the Genetically Modified (GM) mustard has been created, based on the article “Why SC couldn’t agree on environmental release of GM mustard” published in “Indian Express” on 25th July 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3 -Science and Technology- developments and their applications and effects in everyday life.

Context: The article discusses a split verdict by the Supreme Court on allowing the environmental release of the Genetically Modified (GM) mustard variety DMH (Dhara Mustard Hybrid)-11. The judges disagreed on the GEAC’s approval process. They directed the government to create a national policy on GM crops, involving experts and stakeholders.

For detailed information on Transgenic Crops in India read this article here

What is the History of GM Mustard?

2015: Delhi University’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) sought GEAC’s approval for GM mustard.

2016: GEAC published a report and invited comments.

2017: GEAC recommended the environmental release of GM mustard.

2018: Ministry of Environment asked GEAC to re-examine the proposal.

2022: CGMCP urged the Minister for Environment to accept GEAC’s recommendation, and the Centre approved the proposal in October.

Environmentalist challenged the decision: Environmentalist and the research and advocacy organisation Gene Campaign challenged the decision to approve the environmental release of GM mustard before the Supreme Court.

2024: On July 23, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the environmental release of Genetically Modified (GM) mustard.

For detailed information on All About Commercialization of GM Mustard read this article here

What Did Justices B V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol Disagree On?

Justices B V Nagarathna:

1. She argued that the GEAC did not conduct required field tests and ignored the precautionary principle, thus violating public trust.
2. She highlighted that no long-term studies on the effects of GM mustard were conducted, which she saw as a failure to ensure environmental safety.

Justices Sanjay Karol:

1. He believed the GEAC’s process was thorough and supported scientific development.
2. He argued that field tests are necessary to assess the crop’s impact on health and biodiversity.
3. He also noted that other government departments recommended the release of GM mustard and that honeybees did not avoid GM crops like genetically engineered canola.

Question for practice:

Discuss the main points of disagreement between Justices B V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol regarding the environmental release of GM mustard.