GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1847 · Decided: 23-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA

cites 60 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1847 : 2024 INSC 545
Gene Campaign & Anr. 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004)
23 July 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), a body under 
the Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, in its 147th 
meeting held on 18.10.2022, recommended environmental release 
of transgenic mustard hybrid, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), 
which was accepted by the Central Government on 25.10.2022. 
The issues for consideration were: (1) Whether GEAC approval 
dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 
for the environmental release of DMH-11 was in accordance with 
law; (2) Whether the decision to grant approval for environmental 
release of DMH-11 violated the right to safe and healthy environment 
under Article 21 of the Constitution; and (3) Whether GEAC’s grant 
of approval dated 18.10.2022 and the decision dated 25.10.2022 
for environmental release of DMH-11 violated the precautionary 
principle.
Headnotes†
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) – Judicial Review of 
the decision taken by the bodies concerned in the matter of 
GMOs – Held: Is permissible. 
Genetically Modified (GM) crops – Directions issued to evolve 
a National Policy with regard to GM crops in the realm of 
research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country 
in consultation with all stakeholders, such as, experts in 
the field of agriculture, biotechnology, State Governments, 
representatives of the farmers, etc. and to be given due 
publicity – Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 
(MoEF&CC) to conduct a national consultation with the aim 
of formulating the National Policy – State Governments shall 
be involved in evolving the Policy – Respondent – Union 
of India to ensure that all credentials and past records of 
* Author
1848
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
any expert who participates in the decision-making process 
should be scrupulously verified and conflict of interest, if 
any, should be declared and suitably mitigated by ensuring 
representation to wide range of interests – Rules in this regard 
may be formulated having a statutory force – In the matter 
of importing of GM food and more particularly GM edible oil, 
the respondent shall comply with the requirements of s.23 
of FSSA, 2006, which deals with packaging and labelling of 
foods – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 
Genetically Engineered (GE) Crop – Transgenic mustard hybrid 
(DMH-11) – Decision of GEAC and MoEF granting conditional 
approval for environmental release of DMH-11 – Challenge to, 
on grounds of procedural abnormalities in approval; violation 
of right to safe and healthy environment; and violation of 
precautionary principle – Difference of opinion between 
Hon’ble Judges – Per Nagarathna, J., held, approval and 
consequent decision for environmental release of transgenic 
mustard hybrid DMH-11 violated the precautionary principle 
inasmuch as no determination was made, as to, whether, 
transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 is a Herbicide Tolerant 
(HT) crop and if so, the nature of risk that would be caused 
by the said plant to the environment including other plants as 
well as to human beings and animals – The deliberations did 
not focus inter alia, on aspects of biosafety, risk assessment, 
soil health, micro-biology and socioeconomic aspects etc. – 
Moreover, recommendations of Technical Expert Committee 
(TEC) set up by Supreme Court and Parliamentary Standing 
Committees’ Reports on Agriculture and on Science and 
Technology, Environment and Forest were not considered – 
Recommendations of GEAC as well as decision taken 
by respondent-Union of India with regard to approving 
environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 
were vitiated and hence, quashed – Per Karol, J., held, the 
question of ban on HT crops is not warranted in view of the 
precautionary principle and it is a decision squarely within the 
domain of policy – Composition of GEAC was in accordance 
with the Rules, to which the challenge of constitutionality, 
has failed, and in the absence of any change in the Rules, 
no fault can be found with the same – Decision of GEAC to 
grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of 
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1849
Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
mind, or any other principle of law, on part of the body, which 
itself is an expert body – Matter to be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.