REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 OF 2005
ARUNA RODRIGUES & ORS. … Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 115 OF 2004
AND
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 295 OF 2007
IN W.P.(C) NO.260/2005
O R D E R
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners, who claim to be public spirited individuals
possessing requisite expertise and with the access to information,
stated that a grave and hazardous situation, raising bio safety
concerns, is developing in our country due to release of Genetically
Modified Organisms (for short ‘GMOs’). The GMOs are allowed to be
released in the environment without proper scientific examination of
bio safety concerns and affecting both the environment and human
health. Thus, the petitioners in this Public Interest Litigation,
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, submit that the intent
and substance of the petition is to put in place a protocol that shall
maintain scientific examination of all relevant aspects of bio safety
before such release, if release were to be at all permissible. On
this premise, their prayer in the main writ petition is for the
issuance of a direction or order to the Union of India, not to allow
any release of GMOs into the environment by way of import,
manufacture, use or any other manner. The ancillary prayers seek
prescribing a protocol, to which all GMOs released would be subjected
and that the Union of India should frame relevant rules in this regard
and ensure its implementation.
2. This Court, vide its order dated 1st May, 2006, directed that
till further orders, field trials of GMOs shall be conducted only with
the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (for short
‘GEAC’). I.A. No. 4 was filed, in which the prayer was for issuance
of directions to stop all field trials for all genetically modified
products anywhere and everywhere. The Court, however, declined to
direct stoppage of field trials and instead, vide order dated 22nd
September, 2009 directed the GEAC to withhold approvals till further
directions are issued by this Court, after hearing all parties.
Except permitting field trials in certain specific cases, the orders
dated 1st May, 2006 and 22nd September, 2009 were not substantially
modified by the Court. As of 2007, nearly 91 varieties of plants,
i.e., GMOs, were being subjected to open field tests, though in terms
of the orders of this Court, no further open field tests were
permitted nor had the GEAC granted any such approval except with the
authorization of this Court. This has given rise to serious
controversies before this Court as to whether or not the field tests
of GMOs should be banned, wholly or partially, in the entire country.
It is obvious that such technical matters can hardly be the subject
matter of judicial review. The Court has no expertise to determine
such an issue, which, besides being a scientific question, would have
very serious and far-reaching consequences.
3. Nevertheless, this Court, vide its order dated 8th May, 2007,
lifted the moratorium on open field trials, subject to the conditions
stated in that order, including a directive in regard to the
maintenance of 200 metres isolation distance while performing field
tests of GMOs. A further clarification was introduced vide order of
this Court dated 8th April, 2008, whereby all concerned were directed
to comply with the specific protocol of Level Of Detection of 0.01 per
cent.
4. The controversy afore-referred still persisted and further
applications were filed. Amongst others, I.A. No. 32 of 2011 was also
filed. The prayers, in all the aforesaid applications, related to
imposition of an absolute ban on GMOs in the country and appointment
of an Expert Committee whose advice might be sought on these issues.
Due to non-adherence to specified protocol and in face of the report
of one of the independent Experts, Dr. P.M. Bhargava, who was
appointed to meet with the GEAC by the orders of this Court dated 30th
April, 2009, the Government, on its own, imposed a complete ban on Bt
Brinjal.
5. In I.A. No. 32 of 2011, besides making prayers as noticed above,
the Minutes of the meeting of the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Union of India dated 15th March, 2011 where even the petitioners had
participated was also annexed. In these Minutes, the composition of
the Expert Committee as well as the terms of reference was suggested.
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of
India had initially taken time to seek instructions, if any, for
further modifications, as suggested by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, to be made to the constitution of the Committee.
Later, it was stated before us that the Government prayed only for
constitution of the Committee as well as the terms of reference,
exactly as proposed in its Minutes dated 15th March, 2011, without any
amendments.
6. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the different parties
at some length. They all were ad idem on the constitution of the
Expert Committee and the terms of reference as suggested in the
Minutes of the Ministry’s meeting dated 15th March, 2011 and jointly
prayed for its implementation. However, then it was submitted on
behalf of the petitioner, respondent and other intervenors that before
taking a final view and submitting its Report to this Court, the
Committee may hear them. In view of the above, we pass the following
consented order, primarily and substantially with reference to the
Minutes dated 15th March, 2011: -
(1) There shall be the Technical Expert Committee,
the
constitution whereof shall be as follows:
a. Prof. V.L. Chopra
Specialization/Work Focus:Plant Biotechnology Genetics and
Agricultural Science. Former Member, Planning Commission and
Former Member, Science & Advisory Committee to the PMO,
Recepient of several awards including the Padma Bhushan.
b. Dr. Imran Siddiqui
Specialization/Work Focus : Plant Development Biology
Scientist & Group Leader, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology
(CCMB)
c. Prof. P.S. Ramakrishnan
Emeritus Prof. JNU
Work Focus : Environmental Sciences and Biodiversity.
d. Dr. P.C. Chauhan, D.Phil (Sci)
Work Focus : Genetics toxicology and food safety
e. Prof. P.C. Kesavan
Distinguished Fellow, MS SRF (Research Foundation), Emeritus
Professor, CSD, IGNOU, New Delhi.
Work Focus : Genetics Toxicology, Radiation Biology and Sustainable
Science.
f. Dr. B. Sivakumar
Former Director, National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad.
(2) The terms of reference of the said Committee shall be as
follows:
a. To review and recommend the nature of sequencing of risk assessment
(environment and health safety) studies that need to be done for
all GM crops before they are released into the environment.
b. To recommend the sequencing of these tests in order to specify the
point at which environmental release though Open Field Trials can
be permitted.
c. To advise on whether a proper evaluation of the genetically
engineered crop/plants is scientifically tenable in the green house
conditions and whether it is possible to replicate the conditions
for testing under different agro ecological regions and seasons in
greenhouse?
d. To advise on whether specific conditions imposed by the regulatory
agencies for Open Field Trials are adequate. If not, recommend
what additional measures/safeguards are required to prevent
potential risks to the environment.
e. Examine the feasibility of prescribing validated protocols and
active testing for contamination at a level that would preclude any
escaped material from causing an adverse effect on the environment.
f. To advise on whether institutions/laboratories in India have the
state-of-art testing facilities and professional expertise to
conduct various biosafety tests and recommend mechanism to
strengthen the same. If no such institutions are available in
India, recommend setting up an independent testing
laboratory/institution.
g. The Expert Committee would be free to review reports or studies
authored by national and international scientists if it was felt
necessary. The petitioners opined that they would like to formally
propose three Expert Reports from Prof. David Andow, Prof. Jack
Heinemann and Dr. Doug Gurian Sherman to be a formal part of the
Committee’s deliberations. The MoEF may similarly nominate which
experts they choose in this exercise.
3. The Court will highly appreciate if the said Committee submits
its final report to the Court within three months from today.
4. The Committee may hear the Government, petitioners and any other
intervenor in this petition, who, in the opinion of the Committee,
shall help the cause of expeditious and accurate finalization of its
report.
5. In the event and for any reason whatsoever, the Committee is
unable to submit its final report to the Court within the time
stipulated in this order, we direct that the Committee should instead
submit its interim report within the same period to the Court on the
following issue: “Whether there should or should not be any ban,
partial or otherwise, upon conducting of open field tests of the GMOs?
In the event open field trials are permitted, what protocol should be
followed and conditions, if any, that may be imposed by the Court for
implementation of open field trials.”
7. Let the matter stand over to 6th August, 2012.
….…………......................CJI.
(S.H. Kapadia)
…….…………......................J.
(A.K. Patnaik)
...….…………......................J.
(Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi
May 10, 2012
