1. FACTS
The case of *Gene Campaign v. Union of India*, (2024) SC, marked a significant milestone in the Indian environmental and agricultural jurisprudence. Gene Campaign, a prominent non-governmental organization advocating for farmers’ rights and bio-diversity conservation, challenged the Union Government’s decision to allow the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) mustard, DMH-11, developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants under Delhi University. The petitioners raised concerns over the environmental, health, and socio-economic impacts of the genetically modified crop.
The Union Government, acting through the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), had cleared the GM mustard for environmental release, marking it as India’s first genetically modified food crop approved for commercial cultivation. Gene Campaign contested this approval, citing a lack of transparency, inadequate biosafety data, procedural lapses, and the potential violation of farmers’ rights and environmental norms under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The petition brought into focus key statutory and constitutional protections, including the right to health, the precautionary principle, and the participatory rights of communities under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
2. ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the approval granted to GM mustard by GEAC violated the precautionary principle and environmental safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986?
2. Whether there was non-compliance with statutory consultation and biosafety assessment procedures?
3. Whether the decision violated the constitutional right to life and health under Article 21?
4. Whether the approval undermined the rights of farmers and indigenous communities as protected by the Biological Diversity Act, 2002?
3. CONTENTION
Petitioner’s Contentions (Gene Campaign):
– The petitioners argued that the GEAC acted arbitrarily by approving GM mustard without comprehensive, transparent, and peer-reviewed biosafety tests.
– They raised the concern that the herbicide-tolerant nature of DMH-11 would promote unsustainable farming practices, harmful to both biodiversity and human health.
– It was contended that the approval process lacked public participation and violated the spirit of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to which India is a party.
– The use of foreign genes in GM mustard was alleged to potentially lead to genetic contamination, threatening India’s native crop diversity and traditional seed sovereignty.
– The petitioners also emphasized the lack of compliance with the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, particularly in securing prior informed consent from local communities and farmers who are the custodians of traditional agricultural knowledge.
Respondent’s Contentions (Union of India):
The Government argued that the approval was granted after a rigorous multi-stage evaluation by expert bodies, including field trials and food safety assessments.
– It was contended that GM mustard had the potential to increase crop productivity, reduce import dependency on edible oils, and contribute to national food security.
– The GEAC’s decision, as per the respondents, was based on scientific evidence and due consideration of environmental safeguards.
– The Union Government maintained that the regulatory framework under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, provides adequate checks and balances, and the approval complied with all legal requirements.
4. RATIONALE
The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Gene Campaign v. Union of India* took a nuanced and balanced approach, seeking to harmonize environmental safeguards with scientific innovation and national interest. The Court emphasized the precautionary principle as a cardinal rule in environmental decision-making, especially when dealing with irreversible consequences like genetic modification.
The Court observed that although scientific advancement is crucial for food security and agricultural progress, it must not come at the cost of ecological safety or citizens’ health. It held that the statutory mandate under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, requires not only scientific evaluation but also procedural fairness, including transparency, public consultation, and inter-ministerial coordination.
On the issue of biosafety, the Court noted several shortcomings in the data made available to the public. It directed the GEAC to place all biosafety data in the public domain for independent peer review. The judgment also laid down guidelines for future GM crop approvals, reinforcing the need for:
– A publicly accessible regulatory process;
– Independent scientific evaluation;
– Mandatory consultation with State Governments and local communities;
– Periodic post-release monitoring.
While the Court did not outrightly ban GM mustard, it stayed its commercial release until compliance with the outlined safeguards. It emphasized that public health and ecological sustainability form an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. DEFECTS OF LAW
The case exposed several critical gaps in India’s existing regulatory framework for GM crops:
1. Lack of Legislative Clarity: India still does not have a comprehensive and independent biosafety legislation. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, while broad, lacks specificity regarding GMOs.
2. Inadequate Public Participation: The current system fails to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement, particularly from farming communities and civil society.
3. Opacity in GEAC Procedures: The absence of a statutory requirement for transparency in the GEAC’s decision-making process undermines accountability.
4. Post-Release Monitoring: There is a weak institutional mechanism to monitor the long-term environmental and health impact of GM crops post-approval.
5. Conflict of Interest: Concerns remain over the independence of regulatory bodies, with overlapping functions between research and regulation.
6. Undermining Traditional Knowledge: The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, though protective on paper, lacks strong enforcement on issues like prior informed consent and equitable benefit-sharing.
6. INFERENCE
The *Gene Campaign v. Union of India* (2024) case serves as a landmark in reaffirming the constitutional and ecological conscience of the Indian judiciary. It underscores the principle that technological advancement must align with the democratic ethos of transparency, public participation, and precaution.
By not completely rejecting scientific progress but instead strengthening the safeguards around it, the judgment sets a precedent for future policy-making. The case brings into sharp relief the urgent need for a comprehensive biosafety law, independent regulatory bodies, and active community participation in environmental governance.
The Court’s emphasis on the precautionary principle, the right to health, and ecological sustainability echoes its earlier environmental jurisprudence, notably *Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India*, (1996) 5 SCC 647 and *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India*, (2002) 4 SCC 356.
Ultimately, the judgment reflects a progressive interpretation of environmental law, harmonizing science, policy, and constitutional rights. It acts as a judicial reminder that the right to life includes the right to safe food, a clean environment, and informed choices — values that must never be genetically modified.
Bibliography
Gene Campaign v. Union of India*, (2024) SC (India).
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India*, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 356 (India).
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India*, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647 (India).
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, **GEAC Approval Letter for Environmental Release of GM Mustard**, (Oct. 25, 2022), https://moef.gov.in.
Supreme Court of India, **Final Judgment – Gene Campaign v. Union of India, (July23,2024), https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/SupremeCourtReports/2024_INSC_545.pdf.
Krishnadas Rajagopal, *Split Verdict on GM Mustard: One Judge Upholds, Another Quashes The Hindu (July23,2024), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-split-verdict-on-gm-mustard/article67907627.ece.
Srishti Jaswal, *SC Flags Absence of Health Expert on GEAC, Seeks Public Consultation*, The Wire (July 2024), https://thewire.in/law/gm-mustard-supreme-court-health-expert.
Apoorva Mandhani, *Need for National GMO Policy: SC Split on GM Mustard*, LiveLaw (July 23, 2024), https://livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-split-verdict-gm-mustard-gene-campaign-v-union-of-india-246876.
Haritha John, *GM Mustard and Farmers’ Rights: What the Supreme Court Said*, The News Minute (Apr. 10, 2025), https://www.thenewsminute.com/legal/gm-mustard-supreme-court-april-hearing.
NAME- SASWOTI RATH.
COLLEGE NAME- SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW.