The Supreme Court recently expressed displeasure at the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for not considering the recommendations of the Court appointed expert committee before taking its decision in October 2022 to release the GM mustard variety into the environment. The top court appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) made certain recommendations, with one member dissenting.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol enquired the Attorney General of India R Venkataramani if the GEAC considered the committee’s report. The Attorney General replied that it was to be considered by the Government and that there was no legal requirement for GEAC to consider such reports.
Expressing disappointment, Justice Nagarathna stated that GEAC was not working in vacuum. He maintained that the court goes to the trouble of appointing a committee and then the committee gives a report, but nobody takes note of it and the 25 October comes. Notably, the release of the GM mustard was put on hold after the Court asked the Centre to maintain the status quo in November 2022.
During the hearing, Attorney General of India R Venkataramani said that a detailed analysis of the TEC’s recommendations and steps taken by the Centre reveal that the regulatory regime has been further strengthened since 2012 to ensure that a comprehensive, transparent and science-based framework is in place for environmental risk assessment of GM crops.
The Attorney General said that the conditional approval granted for environmental release of GM Mustard was an example of effective implementation of the strengthened regulatory framework. He added that even for grant of conditional approval for environment release, a rigorous risk analysis approach was taken and the complete procedure, which included safety assessment of both environment and health risks.
He further noted that a comprehensive timeline of events leading up to the conditional approval detailing the entire regulatory process has been placed before this court. He remarked that deliberations on the varying understandings on applications of science and technology will lie in the domain of the governance engagement and mere differences of opinion in such matters need not necessarily be the reason for the court entering into the evaluation of such views and adopting or rejecting any one of them.
The Supreme Court is hearing separate pleas by activist Aruna Rodrigues and NGO Gene Campaign seeking a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies the results of which are made public.
Notably, the central government is also seeking withdrawal of an oral undertaking given in November 2022 by its law officer about not pressing ahead with commercial cultivation of genetically modified mustard. The apex court on August 29, 2023 observed that environmental harm cannot be undone after the Centre said either it be discharged from the oral undertaking of November 2022 or the government be permitted to sow GM seeds this season at some sites.
Earlier, the top court had said it was more concerned about the risk factors than anything else when it came to the conditional approval granted by the Centre for environmental release of GM mustard.
The next hearing in the matter will be on January 16.