LexARUNA RODRIGUES AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 553 ARUNA RODRIGUES AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005) MAY 10, 2012 [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Environmental Laws: Public health - Bio-safety concern - Release of A B c Genetically Modified Organisms (GMS) - PIL - Prayer for issuance of direction to Union of India to stop release of GMOs into the environment by way of import, manufacture, use or any other manner and to prescribe protocol, to which all GMOs released would be subjected and for framing rules in that D regard - Supreme court directed the constitution of Technical Expert Committee as well as terms of reference as suggested in the Minutes of the Ministry's meeting dated 15th March, 2011 - Committee is directed to submit its final report within 3 months and in the event the committee is not able to submit E its final report within the stipulated time, the Committee is directed to submit its interim report regarding issue as to whether there should be any ban, partial or otherwise, upon conducting of open field tests of GMOs and in the event of permitting open field trials, what should be protocol in that F regard. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005 etc. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. WITH W.P. (C) No. 115 of 2004. 553 G H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A Contempt Petition (C) No. 295 of 2007 in W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2005. Prashant Bhushan, Sumeet Sharma, Rohit Kumar Singh, Shashank Singh, Kamini Jaiswal, Sanjay Parikh, Mamta 8 Saxena, A.N. Singh, Bushra Parveen, Anitha, Shenoy for the Petitioners. H.P. Rawal, ASG, T.A. Khan, Kiran Bharadwaj, B.K. Prasad, S.N. Terdal, Anil Katiyar, S. Hariharan, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Abhijat P. Medh, Srikkala Gurukrishna Kumar, Kamini C Jaiswal, Vijendra Kumar, Shaikh Chand Saheb, Subramonium Prasad for the Respondents. D The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners, who claim to be public spirited individuals possessing requisite expertise and with the access to information, stated that a grave and hazardous situation, raising bio safety concerns, is developing E in our country due to release of Genetically Modified Organisms (for short 'GMOs'). The GMOs are allowed to be released in the environment without proper scientific examination of bio safety concerns and affecting both the environment and human health. Thus, the petitioners in this Public Interest Litigation, F under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, submit that the intent and substance of the petition is to put in place a protocol that shall maintain scientific examination of all relevant aspects of bio safety before such release, if release were to be at all permissible. On this premise, their prayer in the main Writ G petition is for the issuance of a direction or order to the Union of India, not to allow any release of GMOs into the environment by way of import, manufacture, use or any other manner. The ancillary prayers seek prescribing a protocol, to which all GMOs released would be subjected and that the Union of India should H ARUNA RODRIGUES AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 555 AND ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] frame relevant rules in this regard and ensure its A implementation. 2. This Court, vide its order dated 1st May, 2006, directed that till further orders, field trials of GMOs shall be conducted only with the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval 8 Committee (for short 'GEAC'). I.A. No. 4 was filed, in which the prayer was for issuance of directions to stop all field trials for all genetically modified products anywhere and everywhere. The Court, however, declined to direct stoppage of field trials and instead, vide order dated 22nd September, 2009 directed the C GEAC to withhold approvals till further directions are issued by this Court, after hearing all parties. Except permitting field trials in certain specific cases, the orders dated 1st May, 2006 and 22nd September, 2009 were not substantially modified by the Court. As of 2007, nearly 91 varieties of plants, i.e., GMOs, were being subjected to open field tests, though in terms of the D orders of this Court, no further open field tests were permitted nor had the GEAC granted any such approval except with the authorization of this Court. This has given rise to serious controversies before this Court as to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.