Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Gene Campaign & Another vs. Union of India & Others
Date: 23rd July 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice Nagarathna
Acts and Sections: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Articles 14, 19, 21, 38, 47, 48, 48A, 51-A(g) of the Indian Constitution, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)
Cited Judgments: State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan (1988), M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath (1997), Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy vs. Union of India (2003)
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 23rd July 2024, addressed a complex and significant legal battle involving the approval and environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically the Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11). The case, Gene Campaign & Another vs. Union of India & Others, raises critical issues concerning environmental protection, public health, and the legal and regulatory framework governing GMOs in India.
Background of the Case
The writ petitions filed by Gene Campaign, a society comprising various professionals dedicated to protecting genetic resources, challenged the approval process and regulatory oversight related to GMOs. The primary contention was that the existing regulations under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, were inadequate and not aligned with constitutional principles and international obligations.
The petitioners argued that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and other regulatory bodies lacked transparency and were not equipped to handle the complexities of GMO approvals. They highlighted the potential risks to biodiversity, public health, and the socio-economic fabric of rural India.
Key Legal Issues
Regulatory Framework and Constitutional Compliance: The petitioners sought a revision of the 1989 Rules under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensure they conform to Articles 14, 19, 21, 38, 47, 48, 48A read with 51-A(g) of the Indian Constitution. They argued that these rules must incorporate principles like the precautionary principle, sustainable development, and inter-generational equity.
Transparency and Public Participation: A significant criticism was the lack of public involvement in the decision-making process. The petitioners emphasized the need for public consultations and access to information, especially considering the potential impact of GMOs on public health and the environment.
Safety and Risk Assessment: The petitioners contended that the existing safety and risk assessment protocols were insufficient. They demanded rigorous, science-based assessments conducted by independent bodies to ensure the safety of GMOs before any environmental release.
Court’s Findings
Honorable Justice Nagarathna meticulously examined the arguments, submissions, and extensive material presented during the hearings. The judgment underscored several critical points:
Precautionary Principle and Public Trust Doctrine: The court reaffirmed the importance of the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine. It emphasized that the approval and release of GMOs must adhere to these principles to safeguard the environment and public health.
Regulatory Gaps and Recommendations: The judgment acknowledged significant gaps in the regulatory framework. It recommended the establishment of a dedicated secretariat with expertise in biosafety and risk assessment. This body should operate independently to ensure unbiased and thorough evaluations of GMOs.
Public Participation and Transparency: The court directed that public participation should be integral to the approval process. It stressed the necessity for transparency, allowing stakeholders to access relevant information and participate meaningfully in consultations.
Independent Testing and Monitoring: The judgment called for robust mechanisms for independent testing and monitoring of GMOs. It highlighted the need for validated protocols and stringent oversight to prevent contamination and ensure biosafety.
Preface: Intergenerational Equity and Environmental Ethics
The ideas drawn from sacred texts of the world emphasize the worship and respect of nature, urging mankind to preserve it. This embodies the doctrine of intergenerational equity. For instance, the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana describes nature and its creations as divine organs of God, teaching humans to respect all species. Across various faiths in India, the earth is seen as a sacred creation of God, and nature's elements are considered holy. Human beings, composed of these five elements, learn valuable lessons from them: Earth teaches patience and love; Air teaches mobility and liberty; Fire teaches warmth and courage; Sky teaches equality and broad-mindedness; and Water teaches purity and cleanliness.
Fundamental Right to a Safe Environment
One of the central issues in the case was whether the approval for the environmental release of DMH-11 violated the fundamental right to a safe and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that GMOs pose significant risks to human health and the environment. The precautionary principle was highlighted as a necessary guideline for any approval process, ensuring that potential harms are thoroughly evaluated and mitigated before any GMO is released into the environment.
Analysis and Implications
The Supreme Court’s judgment is a landmark in the context of GMO regulation in India. It not only addresses the specific concerns related to DMH-11 but also sets a precedent for future regulatory practices.
Strengthening Regulatory Framework: The court’s directives aim to fortify the regulatory framework governing GMOs. By emphasizing the need for an independent and scientifically competent regulatory body, the judgment seeks to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of GMO approvals.
Enhancing Public Confidence: The emphasis on transparency and public participation is crucial for building public trust. Allowing stakeholders to access information and participate in the decision-making process can lead to more informed and balanced outcomes.
Balancing Innovation and Safety: The judgment strikes a balance between promoting technological innovation and ensuring environmental and public health safety. By advocating for stringent safety assessments and adherence to the precautionary principle, it aims to mitigate potential risks associated with GMOs.
Global Implications: The judgment aligns with international best practices and obligations under treaties like the CBD and CPB. It positions India as a responsible player in the global discourse on GMOs and biosafety.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gene Campaign & Another vs. Union of India & Others is a significant step towards ensuring a balanced and rigorous regulatory approach to GMOs in India. By addressing regulatory deficiencies, emphasizing transparency, and upholding constitutional principles, the court has paved the way for a more robust and credible GMO approval process. This judgment serves as a guiding framework for future cases and regulatory practices, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding environmental and public health while fostering technological innovation.
Comments