Page 1

1

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,

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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,

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

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: -

Page 6

6

(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

Page 7

7

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

Page 8

8

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.

Page 9

9

                                                    (A.K. Patnaik)

...….…………......................J.                                              (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi May 10, 2012