Skip to main content

GoI's 'irresponsible, unscientific' policy on GM mustard seeks to criminalise farmers

Counterview Desk 

The Coalition for a GM-Free India has asked the Government of India (GoI) to show how it will prevent farmers from using herbicides on HT mustard crop that received approval in October 2022. In a letter sent to Bhupendar Yadav. Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, it said, the GoI has no statutory powers to regulate farmers in their use of herbicides either under Insecticides Act or Environment Protection Act (EPA).
The letter, signed by Kavitha Kuruganti, said, the GoI has been “disingenuously arguing that Delhi University’s GM mustard which has used the bar-barnase-barstar technology in the name of pollination control, is not herbicide tolerant. It has also said, including in Supreme Court affidavits and the regulators’ approval letter to the crop developer, that farmers will be penalised under the Insecticides Act 1968 and EPA if they use herbicide on GM mustard crop.”
It quoted the regulators’ approval letter as stating, “Usage of any formulation of herbicide is not permitted for cultivation in the farmer’s field under any situation… Any such use in the farmer’s field without due approval from CIB&RC would attract appropriate legal action under Central Insecticides Act 1968 and Environment Protection Act 1986”, underlining, “This essentially means that the GoI is “ready to criminalise ordinary distress-stricken farmers of the country with jail terms after taking an irresponsible and unscientific policy decision.”
The Coalition underlined, “The very inclusion of a condition about usage of herbicide in farmers’ fields is an admission that the GM mustard crop is indeed herbicide tolerant, including in the hybrid version meant for cultivation by farmers.”

Text:

On October 25th 2022, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) wrote an approval letter for the environmental release of GM HT Mustard to the applicant CGMCP in Delhi University. Based on the untenable conditions placed in the approval letter and the specious argument that GM mustard is a herbicide tolerant crop only in the seed production stage and not thereafter, the Union of India is misleading the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with an assurance that GM mustard is not an HT crop. By repeatedly giving this assurance that GM mustard is not a herbicide tolerant crop (on irresponsible reasoning that the crop applicant did not apply for its environmental release as an HT crop and does not intend to commercially exploit that trait!), the Government of India is trying to circumvent the clear recommendation by the Court-appointed TEC for a ban on HT crops in India (similar recommendations were given by other credible committees too). The Government is, clearly, trying to prevent the SC from adjudicating on GM mustard on the basis of the TEC report, both because it knows that GM mustard is indeed an HT crop and because the Government is also aware of the many adverse impacts of HT crops.
Government should stop its efforts to criminalise farmers: Against this backdrop, the Government of India is latching on to a particular condition in the GM mustard environmental release approval letter issued in October 2022, to present an assurance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and concerned citizens that farmers will not be allowed to use GM mustard as an HT crop. The very fact that Condition Number VII appears on Page 2 of the approval letter is an admission that GM mustard indeed is an HT crop with the distinct possibility of farmers using the corresponding herbicide Glufosinate on the crop.
Instead of avoiding the approval of such a hazardous crop, the Government of India is seeking the easy option of criminalisation of farmers by putting in such a condition. Meanwhile, this letter is to highlight the fact that such criminalisation or penalising of farmers is legally not possible!
In the additional affidavit filed in the SC on 09.11.2022 by the Union of India, it was stated that “the use of herbicide by farmers is not permitted in the fields for cultivation of GM mustard crop in accordance with the recommendation made by the GEAC…This is clearly enshrined in conditions VI and VII of the permit letter issued by the Government of India on 25.10.2022. Any such use in the farmer’s field without due approval from CIB&RC would attract appropriate legal action under Central Insecticides Act 1968 and Rules 1971, Environment Protection Act 1986 and Rules made thereunder”.
The permission letter dated 25/10/2022 stated VII. Usage of any formulation of herbicide is not permitted for cultivation in the farmer’s filed under any situation and such use would require the necessary permission as per the procedures and protocols of safety assessment of insecticides/herbicides by CIB&RC would attract appropriate legal action under Central Insecticides Act 1968 and Rules 1971, EP Act 1986 and Rules made thereunder.”
It is highly misleading for GoI to assure the Court that regulators will prevent farmers from using herbicide on HT GM mustard crop
Insecticides Act 1968 EXEMPTS farmers from the purview of regulation: However, under Section 38 of the Insecticides Act 1968, farmers are exempted from the purview of statutory regulation.
“38. Exemption.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to— (a) the use of any insecticide by any person for his own household purposes or for kitchen garden or in respect of any land under his cultivation; (b) any substance specified or included in the Schedule or any preparation containing any one or more such substances, if such substance or preparation is intended for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify therein, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, any educational, scientific or research organisation engaged in carrying out experiments with insecticides.”
Therefore, it is highly misleading for the Government of India to assure the Court that regulators will prevent farmers from using herbicide on this HT GM mustard crop.
Environment Protection Act 1986 also cannot regulate farmers from using herbicide: Section 15 of EPA 1986 provides for “Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, Orders and Directions”. This applies to whoever fails to comply with, or contravenes any of the provisions of the EPA or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder. The permission letter of October 25th 2022 is not a Rule or Order or Direction, and there are no Rules or orders or directions under the EPA which regulate farmers in their usage of herbicides. Under the EPA 1989 Rules, no SBCCs and DLCs function at the ground level in any case, to be implementation arms to the GoI regulators. Therefore, it is once again incorrect on the part of the GoI to assure the Supreme Court that regulators under the EPA will prevent farmers from using herbicide on GM HT Mustard.
In such a situation, the Coalition for a GM-Free India challenges the Government of India to explain how it will prevent farmers from using herbicides on a HT crop, while regulation can certainly prevent farmers from using unapproved GM seeds. Even though the latter powers exist, the GEAC and other regulators already showed their incapability in regulating the vast spread of illegal herbicide tolerant GM cotton in many states of the country.
It is in this context that we demand that the Government of India (a) stop misleading the Hon’ble Supreme Court, (b) abide by the SC-appointed independent TEC report recommendations, and (c) ban all HT crops in India immediately, including for field trials.

Comments

V M said…
The coalition is playing with words. The meaning is being misinterpreted. When the Government says that consumption of opium will be penalized, it doesn't mean that the Government is criminalizing the people. Similarly, when the Government says that killing a person will be penalized, it doesn't mean that the Government is criminalizing the people. The rule made by the Government should be understood positively as a deterrent.

TRENDING

Covishield controversy: How India ignored a warning voice during the pandemic

Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD *  It is a matter of pride for us that a person of Indian origin, presently Director of National Institute of Health, USA, is poised to take over one of the most powerful roles in public health. Professor Jay Bhattacharya, an Indian origin physician and a health economist, from Stanford University, USA, will be assuming the appointment of acting head of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA. Bhattacharya would be leading two apex institutions in the field of public health which not only shape American health policies but act as bellwether globally.

Growth without justice: The politics of wealth and the economics of hunger

By Vikas Meshram*  In modern history, few periods have displayed such a grotesque and contradictory picture of wealth as the present. On one side, a handful of individuals accumulate in a single year more wealth than the annual income of entire nations. On the other, nearly every fourth person in the world goes to bed hungry or half-fed.

Thali, COVID and academic credibility: All about the 2020 'pseudoscientific' Galgotias paper

By Jag Jivan   The first page image of the paper "Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis" published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs , Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2020), has gone viral on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding a Chinese robot presented by the Galgotias University as its original product at the just-concluded AI summit in Delhi . The resurfacing of the 2020 publication, authored by  Dharmendra Kumar , Galgotias University, has reignited debate over academic standards and scientific credibility.

'Serious violation of international law': US pressure on Mexico to stop oil shipments to Cuba

By Vijay Prashad   In January 2026, US President Donald Trump declared Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security—a designation that allows the United States government to use sweeping economic restrictions traditionally reserved for national security adversaries. The US blockade against Cuba began in the 1960s, right after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 but has tightened over the years. Without any mandate from the United Nations Security Council—which permits sanctions under strict conditions—the United States has operated an illegal, unilateral blockade that tries to force countries from around the world to stop doing basic commerce with Cuba. The new restrictions focus on oil. The United States government has threatened tariffs and sanctions on any country that sells or transports oil to Cuba.

The 'glass cliff' at Galgotias: How a university’s AI crisis became a gendered blame game

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.

When grief becomes grace: Kerala's quiet revolution in organ donation

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  Kerala is an important model for understanding India's diversity precisely because the religious and cultural plurality it has witnessed over centuries brought together traditions and good practices from across the world. Kerala had India's first communist government, was the first state where a duly elected government was dismissed, and remains the first state to achieve near-total literacy. It is also a land where Christianity and Islam took root before they spread to Europe and other parts of the world. Kerala has deep historic rationalist and secular traditions.

When a lake becomes real estate: The mismanagement of Hyderabad’s waterbodies

By Dr Mansee Bal Bhargava*  Misunderstood, misinterpreted and misguided governance and management of urban lakes in India —illustrated here through Hyderabad —demands urgent attention from Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), the political establishment, the judiciary, the builder–developer lobby, and most importantly, the citizens of Hyderabad. Fundamental misconceptions about urban lakes have shaped policies and practices that systematically misuse, abuse and ultimately erase them—often in the name of urban development.

Activists warn of gendered impact of VB-GRAMG Act, seek return to MGNREGA framework

By A Representative   The All-India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA), along with the Agrarian Alliance and Workers’ Forum of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), has written to President Droupadi Murmu urging her to call upon Parliament to repeal the newly enacted Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-GRAMG Act) and restore and strengthen the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

Stray dogs, an epsilon (ϵ) problem: Of child labour, and the art of misplaced priorities

By Bhaskaran Raman  The Greek alphabet ϵ (epsilon) is used in maths and science to denote a quantity which is not zero, but extremely small *** Since the Supreme Court's interim order on the issue of stray dogs came out on 07 Nov 2025, there have been a range of opinion pieces speaking for the voiceless. Most of them take the stance that there is a "problem" with stray dogs, but that we need a humane solution. I agree with this broadly, but I think we need new terminology to talk about this.