What “weight” given to reports against genetically modified organisms: SC to Centre

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre about why reports of the court appointed technical expert committee’s (TEC) on biosafety of genetically modified (GM) Crops were not looked into by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). The court posted the matter for hearing on January 16.

(Representative file image) Hearing a clutch of petitions alleging various gaps in the regulatory process followed in granting clearance to GMOs, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol said, “This Court took the trouble of appointing an expert committee (having six members) in 2012 which gave its report in June 2013 along with a dissenting note by one member.

It is since lying in the record room. What is the weight being given to this report.” Wrap up the year gone by & gear up for 2024 with HT! Click here The Court was hearing submissions made by Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for Centre opposing the petitions filed by Gene Campaign, pending since 2004 followed by petitions filed by environment activist Aruna Rodrigues, NGO Research Foundation for Science and Technology among others.

Also Read: Issue of GM crops vital, why is it pending since 2004, asks SC The petitions relied on the TEC report of 2013 which raised serious gaps in the regulatory mechanism for GMOs. Approvals for GM crops is given by GEAC. Venkataramani said, “The TEC considered that certain major gaps in the regulatory system need to be addressed.

In this regard, suggestions about the regulatory process were made. The committee went beyond its terms of reference to the extreme extent of observing that herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are completely unsuitable in the Indian context... The dissenting opinion given by RS Paroda raised serious objections to the procedures and deliberations of the TEC that virtually worked with a closed mind.” The Court said, “We need not go into the question for what reason a person writes a dissent...

These petitions have been pending for nearly a decade. Should the report (of TEC) be consigned to the record room.” AG said that the recommendations of the TEC by way of the terms of reference specified by the top court in its order constituting TEC on May 10, 2012, have been adequately addressed.

He said that an example of the strengthened regulatory framework was the conditional approval granted for the environmental release of GM mustard on October 25, 2022. Further, the Centre argued, “In matters of policies relating to application of science and technologies, the question that may be addressed by the Court will revolve around due processes.

Deliberations on the varying understandings on applications of science and technology will lie in the domain of the governance engagement. Mere differences of opinions 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.” As the submissions of AG remained inconclusive, the Court posted the matter for hearing on January 16.

On Wednesday, the Court observed that the issue of GM crops raises a vital issue and decided to hear the challenge to the environmental release of GMOs rather than restricting its scope to the permission for open release of GM mustard by GEAC. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for Gene Campaign said, “Inter generational equity principle requires that you do not do something which ultimately results in adverse impact on biodiversity.” He said that the regulatory mechanism for GMOs has “serious gaps” as rules are arbitrary and data on tests conducted by Centre are not available in public domain.

Appearing for another petitioner, Aruna Rodrigues, advocate Prashant Bhushan said that GMOs pose known and unknown risks to human and animal health, environment and soil. He stated that the herbicide tolerant gene sought to be introduced through GM mustard is poisonous and will result in cancer. The Centre has not done any long term feeding study on rats or bees to conclude that these hybrid crops cause contamination of soil and affect biodiversity.

“The TEC went into these aspects in great detail and said this is a total no for India. This report must be implemented, and the Union government directed not to release any GM crop into the environment without following necessary precautions,” Bhushan said. The TEC originally had five experts, namely PS Chauhan, PC Kesavan, PS Ramakrishnan, I Siddiqui, and B Sivakumar.

In November 2012, Paroda was also appointed to the TEC and on June 30, 2013, the TEC submitted its final report to the Court while a separate report was given by Paroda. Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now! Get Latest India News and Earthquake Today along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON Share this article Share Via Copy Link Supreme Court Centre.