Disagreement on environmental clearance of GM mustard

Reference

Recently, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on the issue of granting environmental clearance to genetically modified (GM) mustard.

About GM mustard

• It is known as Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11).
• It has been developed by scientists of the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) of Delhi University.
  • For this, crossing of Indian mustard variety Varuna was done with the Eastern European variety Early Heera-2.
• DMH-11 has been created through transgenic technology, which mainly includes Barnase and Barstar genes.
  • The Barnase gene provides sterility, due to which it does not self-pollinate
  • While the Barstar gene restores the ability of DMH-11 to produce fertile seeds.
• DMH-11 is an insect and disease resistant variety, which can reduce the expenditure on pesticides while cultivating it.

Case before the Supreme Court

Environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues and research and advocacy organisation Gene Campaign had challenged the environmental clearance of GM mustard by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in the Supreme Court, citing adverse effects of GM mustard on bees and soil microbial diversity.

Supreme Court ruling

• Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol disagreed on two main aspects:
  • Whether the GEAC’s decision-making process was legal.
  • Whether it violated the precautionary principle for scientific innovations.
    • The precautionary principle, a standard test in environmental litigation, is recognised as an aspect of the right to a clean environment (Article 21 – fundamental right to life).
• Justice Nagarathna opined:
  • The field trials that GEAC had promised to conduct in collaboration with CGMCP did not take place.
  • In May 2022, GEAC changed its stance and approved the recommendation to make GM mustard environmentally friendly.
  • This change in stance without giving any reason shows that GEAC has committed a gross violation of the principle of public trust, as well as failed to take into account the precautionary principle.
• Opinion of Justice Karol:
  • The environmental clearance and subsequent testing were consistent with the ‘development of a scientific temper’ and followed the precautionary principle.
  • The GEAC process was ‘independent’ and ‘rational’.
  • The expert committee appointed by the GEAC had found that bees do not discriminate between genetically modified canola and other GM crops.
  • Both the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Agricultural Research and Education had recommended the environmental release of GM mustard.
• However, the two judges directed the Union of India to 'develop a national policy with regard to GM crops' and to consult experts, farmer entrepreneurs and state governments in the process.