Herbicide tolerant? Govt of India perpetrating 'falsehood' on Delhi varsity’s GM mustard

By Kavitha Kuruganti*

After nearly 20 long years of hearings in a batch of petitions questioning India’s regulatory regime with regard to GMOs, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict from a 2-judge Bench. The Bench refused to conclude whether Delhi University’s GM mustard is herbicide tolerant or not. The Coalition for a GM-Free India responded by asking the Government of India to begin implementing the common observations and conclusions of both the Hon’ble Judges on the Bench, even as other matters go to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India.

The Coalition pointed out that the Supreme Court has the 5-independent members’ Technical Expert Committee recommendations to guide it, since it is after all Court-appointed, consensus committee, where the Government’s two experts along with the petitioner-recommended experts gave a unanimous report on the Terms of Reference assigned to them.

Concerned citizens and experts of India now await the constitution of the larger Bench and the next round of proceedings to begin. The Coalition welcomes the order that the government organise public consultations preferably within the next 4 months for a national policy to be formulated on the subject. The Coalition calls upon ordinary citizens, experts, farmers organisations, beekeepers, consumer rights and environmental groups and other stakeholders to participate in large numbers in the public consultations ordered by the Court, and also asked state governments to take the opportunity to present considered views keeping public interest foremost.

The Coalition welcomed the observations and conclusions of Justice Nagarathna. Justice Nagarathna, the senior Judge on the Bench concluded that the processing of the application and approval of GM mustard was violative of Article 21, of the Precautionary Principle, of the doctrine of public trust and was ignoring the recommendations of the SC Technical Expert Committee etc. She concluded that GM mustard approval infringes on Inter-Generational Equity. She pointed out that the Expert Committee appointed in 2022 gave diametrically opposite views to that of another Committee and relied on foreign studies while dipping into scientific literature, as an illustration.

While Justice Sanjay Karol did not find any manifest arbitrariness or capriciousness, or non-application of mind in GM mustard application processing, or anything unlawful about GEAC Rules and its functioning, he also stated in his conclusions that human health tests are required as part of risk assessment and decision-making, and sought independent studies to be conducted.

He said that study reports need to be uploaded, and public participation in decision-making enabled. Justice Karol also commented on the need for state-of-the-art laboratories and other required infrastructure to be set up. The Bench concluded that judicial review of various regulatory decisions and the regime is permissible.

The Coalition now calls upon the Government to implement those conclusions and directions that are common to both the judges’ verdicts. Apart from asking for a national policy to be created through widespread public consultations with adequate publicity and with the involvement of state governments, both the judges asked for statutory Rules to be created to mitigate conflict of interest.

Human health tests are required as part of risk assessment and decision-making on GM mustard application processing

They also asked for all studies to be uploaded in the public domain, while the regulators have been refusing to do so despite earlier court orders to this effect. They asked for independent studies to be conducted, and talked about compliance to Sec.23 of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.

The Coalition also condemned the falsehoods perpetrated by the Government of India in and outside the Court, to mask the fact that Delhi University’s GM mustard is a herbicide tolerant crop, and hoped that this matter would get addressed unambiguously in future proceedings.

The Coalition also asks all citizens of India and state governments to participate in the public consultations, to ensure that various matters of public interest are fully addressed by the Government of India in any policy that it formulates now on this subject including on:

Farmers’ seed sovereignty
Environmental sustainability and ecological security
Human health
Socio-Economic considerations like employment protection
India’s trade security
Consumer rights
Precautionary Principle and Inter-generational equity
State government’s constitutional authority over agriculture and health
Protection of organic and natural farming in the country, and local germplasm
Conservation of biodiversity
Scientific and rigorous regulation of new gene technologies like genome editing
Adherence to India’s commitments in the Cartagena Protocol which means a comprehensive statutory biosafety law, which ensures transparent, independent, scientific and accountable decision-making on all related aspects

The Coalition asks the Government of India to make the consultations truly participatory, for deliberative democratic processes to shape the national policy, implementing this Order in letter and spirit.

---

*Coalition for a GM-Free India

Comments

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha* This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor* This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman* The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Concerns raised over move to rename MGNREGA, critics call it politically motivated

By A Representative Concerns have been raised over the Union government’s reported move to rename the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), with critics describing it as a politically motivated step rather than an administrative reform. They argue that the proposed change undermines the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and seeks to appropriate credit for a programme whose relevance has been repeatedly demonstrated, particularly during times of crisis.

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.

Search This Blog