In Brief
The Supreme Court issued a split verdict on petitions challenging the approval of genetically modified mustard (DMH-11) for environmental release. Justice Nagarathna quashed the GEAC's approval, finding the decision vitiated by procedural irregularities, lack of adherence to the precautionary principle, inadequate health and environmental impact assessment, failure to consult States, and absence of meaningful engagement with earlier binding directions. Justice Karol upheld the approval, holding it is a valid policy decision within executive competence, properly supported by expert committees, and not demonstrably arbitrary. Both judges agreed that a National Policy on GM crops must be formulated with multi-stakeholder consultation and that labeling requirements under food safety laws must be strictly complied with.</summary_100> <parameter name="subject_tags">["Environmental Law", "Genetic Engineering", "Precautionary Principle", "Administrative Law", "Judicial Review", "Food Safety", "Biosafety", "Constitutional Rights", "Environmental Rule of Law", "Sustainable Development", "GMO Regulation"]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.