A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case, Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., addresses the environmental and constitutional implications of approving genetically modified crops, particularly DMH-11. It highlights the judicial review of decisions made by regulatory bodies, adherence to the precautionary principle, and the constitutional right to a safe and healthy environment under Article 21. The Court examined whether the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) adhered to established legal procedures in recommending the release of DMH-11 and whether the Central Government’s acceptance of this recommendation was legally tenable. The case underscores significant gaps in biosafety assessments, procedural adherence, and public engagement, culminating in directions for evolving a comprehensive national policy on GMOs.
Keywords: Genetically Modified Organisms, Precautionary Principle, Article 21, Judicial Review, Biosafety.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title
Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
ii) Case Number
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004
iii) Judgement Date
23 July 2024
iv) Court
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol
vi) Author
Justice B.V. Nagarathna (Dissenting) and Justice Sanjay Karol (Concurring in Part)
vii) Citation
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1847; 2024 INSC 545
viii) Legal Provisions Involved
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export, and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
- Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
- Convention on Biological Diversity
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None explicitly overruled.
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Environmental Law, Constitutional Law, Biotechnology Regulation, Administrative Law.C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case emerged from the concerns raised over the introduction of GMOs in Indian agriculture, especially regarding their environmental and socio-economic impacts. Petitioners challenged the GEAC’s 2022 decision recommending the release of DMH-11, claiming it violated the precautionary principle and the constitutional right to a safe environment. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to prevent what they perceived as hasty and non-transparent regulatory actions.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) approved the environmental release of DMH-11 during its 147th meeting in October 2022.
- This decision was challenged for alleged procedural irregularities, including ignoring biosafety studies and failing to consult key stakeholders, including state governments.
- The approval raised concerns under Article 21, particularly regarding intergenerational equity and public trust doctrine.
- The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) and Parliamentary Standing Committees had earlier advised caution against GMOs, especially herbicide-tolerant crops.
- Petitioners argued that GEAC’s approval lacked a comprehensive risk assessment, violating international obligations under the Cartagena Protocol and CBD.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether GEAC’s recommendation and the Central Government’s decision violated established legal procedures?
ii) Did the approval process breach Article 21 by endangering the right to a safe and healthy environment?
iii) Was the precautionary principle adequately applied in approving DMH-11?
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) Procedural Deficiencies
The petitioners contended that GEAC’s approval ignored vital procedural safeguards under the 1989 Rules, including mandatory field trials and biosafety evaluations.
ii) Violation of Article 21
They argued that DMH-11’s release posed significant environmental and health risks, infringing upon citizens’ constitutional right to life and a clean environment.
iii) Precautionary Principle
The petitioners highlighted that the approval process disregarded the precautionary principle, which mandates a rigorous ex-ante assessment for activities with potential environmental risks.
iv) Lack of Public Consultation
The petitioners emphasized the absence of consultations with states and stakeholders, undermining participatory environmental governance.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) Compliance with Rules
The Union of India defended the GEAC’s decision, asserting compliance with the 1989 Rules and scientific protocols.
ii) Policy Domain
The respondents argued that GMO approvals fell within the executive’s policy-making domain and were supported by scientific expertise.
iii) Global Practices
They cited international precedents of GMO usage, arguing that India’s regulatory framework was aligned with global standards.
H) JUDGEMENT
a. Ratio Decidendi
Justice Nagarathna held that GEAC’s approval violated the precautionary principle and ignored necessary biosafety assessments. Justice Karol emphasized the executive’s domain in policy decisions, albeit with adequate safeguards.
b. Obiter Dicta
Justice Nagarathna stressed the importance of intergenerational equity and participatory environmental governance.
c. Guidelines Issued
- Conduct long-term biosafety studies before GMO approvals.
- Implement a robust national policy on GMOs with stakeholder consultation.
- Ensure transparency and public participation in GMO regulatory decisions.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This judgment reflects a cautious approach to GMOs, balancing environmental concerns with scientific progress. It underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing constitutional rights against potential regulatory overreach.
J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
- Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996) 9 SCC 140
b. Important Statutes Referred
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
- Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export, and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989
