New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide what is good for the country and its people in dealing with the challenge to the release of genetically modified (GM) crops into the environment.
Hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the decision of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) that cleared open air release of GM mustard, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol said, “The question before us is what is good for the country and the people.”
The Centre had last year sowed GM mustard crop– DMH-11 at eight designated sites of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) before it was released into the environment.
The petitions filed by NGO Gene Campaign, Research Foundation for Science Technology, and activist Aruna Rodrigues, among others, also sought the Court’s intervention to further strengthen the regulatory framework for assessing risks posed by genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Also Read: Supreme Court tells Centre to finalise Motor Vehicle Act amendments by April
Presently, India has permitted only one GM crop – Bt cotton for commercial cultivation.
The Centre has requested the Court to carry out further research on GM mustard even as the Court has set out to decide the issue comprehensively without restricting its consideration to GM mustard.
In this regard, the Court sought to know from the Centre what steps it took according to a report by a Court-appointed technical expert committee (TEC) which advised against the open release of GMOs in its report of June 2013.
On Wednesday, attorney general R Venkataramani, appearing for Centre, showed the Court how the TEC went beyond its terms of reference (ToR), and hence, the Court was not required to consider the findings given on the feasibility of environmental release of these crops.
“The TEC was not meant to be a fact-finding committee but was to recommend safety measures. It went beyond the ToR. What is good for India must be seen from the ToR of the TEC,” he said.
The Centre will continue its submissions on Thursday as solicitor general Tushar Mehta requested some time to address submissions.
“We are not concerned with picking holes in the TEC report. We do not want to debate with scientists as we are not scientists. We will consider the report and the steps taken by you pursuant to the report and give our findings. This matter cannot be adversarial. It can only be what is good for India,” the bench told the attorney general.
Also Read: SC declines to stop Yavatmal, Raipur events; tells DMs to not allow hate speech
The petitioners, represented by senior advocates Sanjay Parikh, Trideep Pais and Prashant Bhushan, submitted that they were not opposed to the experimental release of the GM crops, but its “environmental release poses danger to human and animal health”, besides causing irreversible damage to soil and environment.
The Court said, “We are not saying there should be a ban on research, but these days, traditional fertilizers are not used. No matter how much cow dung and horse dung you put, the soil is so accustomed to synthetic fertilizers that you have to keep on pouring urea, ammonia and such chemicals into the soil.”
An intervention filed by a farmer group sought to support the Centre and said that organic farming is not affordable and the hybrid mustard crop should be allowed to be grown by the farming community.
Venkataramani said, “I do not mind getting into a debate on the larger issue, but there are factual things I need to correct.”
“We only want to vent our concern for the Indian farmers. Indian farmers had always been organic. Now we have fallen for synthetic. That’s the situation of Indian farming now as organic farming has become costly,” the Court observed.
The Court had last week said that the use of genetically modified crops raises a vital issue for consideration.
The Court began hearing the matter last week after it noticed that the first petition filed in this Court in 2004 remained pending despite the case raising “serious” issues concerning human health and safety.
Aisha Patel is a dedicated Indian correspondent with a deep understanding of the nation’s diverse affairs. With a background in Indian culture, politics, and current events, she provides in-depth analysis and timely reporting on domestic issues within India.
