Harm done to environment can’t be reversed: SC on Centre seeking discharge from oral statement in GM mustard case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that any harm once done to the environment cannot be reversed as it asked the Centre not to go ahead with environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard for seed production and testing.

The Centre has sought discharge from an oral statement made in November, 2022 before the court that it would not take any precipitative action on the decision.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, contended before a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan that the undertaking was made in a different context and it is an environmental release where research has gone on for 12 years. She flagged the upcoming sowing season and growing demand of edible oil.

“If we discharge you, what remains in this matter,” the bench asked her. The bench also said one year delay in sowing season does not matter. It also emphasised that harm caused to the environment cannot be reversed and next year there will be another season.

She said the next sowing season will be next year and “we are at the last phase of research. This is not a commercial release, but an environmental release.”

Bhati said the previous assurance was given, when the matter was to be listed in the following week for final hearing. If the bench would discharge the Centre from the oral undertaking, then they can proceed to sow the mustard seeds at the ten sites initially proposed and carry out the research, she said.

Bhati also said it will not be commercially released.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a petitioner, contended that environmental release means release into the environment and if they want to do any test, they can do it in greenhouse conditions otherwise it will lead to contamination.

Bhushan argued that the technical expert committee had said no open test will be conducted until the regulatory mechanism, which is in shambles, is improved. 

Justice Nagarathna told Bhati that the bench is in a new combination, as Justice Dinesh Maheshwari has retired. Earlier, a bench comprising justices Maheshwari and Nagarathna had heard the matter.  

The bench told Bhati that the whole matter has to be argued afresh. Referring to the application seeking discharge from oral statement, the bench asked Bhati, “Why should we do this piecemeal kind of a thing?”  

The bench also said that environment and ecology must also be maintained and the court needs to understand the whole problem. 

After hearing submissions, the  court fixed the matter for further hearing on September 26. In an application, the Union government underscored that the matter concerned would have huge policy implications on agricultural output and farmers income and it deserved early resolution. 

The top court is seized of an application by activist Aruna Rodrigues, which questioned the validity of the GEAC's (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) decision of October 18 2022, and subsequent decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change of October 25, 2022 to allow environmental release of genetically modified mustard/ HT mustard /DMH 11 in five states.