In a matter of grave importance for agriculture, public health awaits Supreme Court ruling, even as top Government of India bureaucrats stand accused of “willful and deliberate disobedience” of the top court.
While a contempt petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues, lead petitioner in the Genetic Modification (GM) of crops matter remains pending in the Supreme Court since July 2025, the Union ministry of agriculture asserts that two home-grown gene edited rice varieties are of superior quality, and hold potential for “revolutionary changes in higher production, climate adaptability, and water conservation.”
In May 2025, the Press Information Bureau released a press release stating that a “historic milestone” had been reached, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi; the new varieties, DRR Rice 100 (Kamla) and Pusa DST Rice 1, the press release stated, offer both benefits – increased production and environmental conservation.
The Union Minister of Agriculture said that efforts of the Union government had led to export of Basmati rice annually to the tune of Rs48,000 crore. He asserted that it would be possible both to reduce the area under rice cultivation and increase total production. These claims have been questioned by scientists and activists, who point to the hyped claims of the government, and the “dangerous pattern of bad science” in the manipulated results.
The contempt petition filed on July 24, 2025, recorded the “willful and deliberate disobedience” of the Respondents (secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, chairman, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), who acted in contravention of solemn assurances recorded in the Supreme Court.
The contempt petition records that a Technical Expert Committee constituted by the Supreme Court had, in its report of June 2013 “recommended a complete ban on HT (herbicide tolerant) crops in India, particularly in crops for which India is a centre of origin or genetic diversity, such as rice or mustard. The TEC found HT crops to be environmentally unsuitable, socio-economically detrimental and scientifically unsafe for Indian agricultural conditions,” the petition states, adding that the herbicide “Roundup” and other similar agents used with HT crops are probable carcinogens.
An interlocutory application seeking implementation of the TEC recommendations remains pending in the SC. The Union government has repeatedly assured the court that no environmental release of HT crops would be permitted; these assurances were recorded in orders of the SC. The matter has been heard by the court and judgment was reserved on January 18, 2024.
Even as judgment was reserved, the Union Agriculture Minister released the new rice varieties, and the ministry announced the commercial release of HT Basmati rice varieties.
“This act of releasing Herbicide Tolerant and Genetically Edited rice constitutes a blatant and deliberate contempt of the judicial process and is also in direct contravention of the judgment subsequently delivered by this Hon’ble Court on 23,07.2024. The said judgment directed the Union of India to first evolve a comprehensive National Policy on GM crops through a consultative process involving experts, state governments, and all stakeholders, and made it clear that no such GM crop shall be released without such a policy in place. The Court also recorded that an application filed by the Union seeking discharge from earlier undertakings was not allowed,” the petition notes.
“The release of HT rice, being both an HT crop and one situated within the Centre of Origin of rice (India) is doubly prohibited under the TEC recommendations and the legal regime governing GMOs, including the 1989 Rules framed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986,” the petition states, citing professors PC Kesavan (geneticist), Jack Heinanmann (of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, UK) and Michael Antoniou (of the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College, London), who have all affirmed that “HT crops, regardless of the method of genetic alteration – whether through transgenesis, chemical mutagenesis or genome editing – remain HT crops and carry the same biosafety and environmental risks.”
The petition noted the risk to public health – Imazethapyr, the herbicide associated with rice, is banned in the European Union. It is linked with carcinogenicity, groundwater contamination, and acceleration of bacterial antibiotic resistance. The capacity of herbicides to induce mutations in bacterial leading to evolution of antibiotic resistance is recorded in scientific literature.
Across several states, sowing of HT varieties of rice has occurred, since its release by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research. The petition notes that this has caused “irreversible contamination of India’s priceless rice germplasm – comprising over 80,000 accessions – and threatening India’s global position as a leading exporter of non-GMO Basmati rice.”
The contempt petition highlights the collapse of the regulatory framework in India, and records the conflict of interest at multiple levels at ICAR, Department of Biotechnology and GEAC, all charged with regulation, while also involved in the development and promotion of GM crops. “ICAR has entered MoUs with Bayer-Monsanto and other multinational agrochemical companies, effectively compromising its neutrality,” the petition states.
The press release from the government of May 2025 attempted to differentiate between genetic engineering and “genome editing”, explaining that the new rice varieties were produced using genome-editing technology based on CRISPR-Cas, “which makes precise changes in the organisms genetic material without adding foreign DNA”. The press release asserted that “genome editing of SDN 1 and SDN 2 types of genes has been approved under India’s biosafety regulations for general crops”.
A section of the press release is worth quoting at length:
“The DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) variety was developed by ICAR-IIRR, Hyderabad, based on Samba Mahsuri (BPT 5204). Its objective is to increase the number of grains per panicle and it matures 20 days earlier (~130 days). Due to its shorter duration, it helps save water and fertilizers and reduces methane gas emissions. Its stalk is strong and does not fall. The rice quality is similar to the original variety, Samba Mahsuri.
The second variety, Pusa DST Rice 1, was developed by ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, based on MTU 1010. This variety can increase yields by 9.66% to 30.4% in saline and alkaline soils, with the potential for up to 20% increase in production.
These varieties have been developed for states such as Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Kerala (Zone VII), Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh (Zone V), Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal (Zone III).
The development of these varieties is a significant step toward India’s goal of becoming a developed nation and promoting sustainable agriculture. In the 2023-24 budget, the Government of India allocated ₹500 crores for genome editing in agricultural crops. ICAR has already initiated genome-editing research for several crops, including oilseeds and pulses.”
It is significant that in a matter of such gravity, the Supreme Court has allowed judgment to remain pending for nearly two years, from January 2024.
---
*Freelance journalist
The contempt petition filed on July 24, 2025, recorded the “willful and deliberate disobedience” of the Respondents (secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, chairman, Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), who acted in contravention of solemn assurances recorded in the Supreme Court.
The contempt petition records that a Technical Expert Committee constituted by the Supreme Court had, in its report of June 2013 “recommended a complete ban on HT (herbicide tolerant) crops in India, particularly in crops for which India is a centre of origin or genetic diversity, such as rice or mustard. The TEC found HT crops to be environmentally unsuitable, socio-economically detrimental and scientifically unsafe for Indian agricultural conditions,” the petition states, adding that the herbicide “Roundup” and other similar agents used with HT crops are probable carcinogens.
An interlocutory application seeking implementation of the TEC recommendations remains pending in the SC. The Union government has repeatedly assured the court that no environmental release of HT crops would be permitted; these assurances were recorded in orders of the SC. The matter has been heard by the court and judgment was reserved on January 18, 2024.
Even as judgment was reserved, the Union Agriculture Minister released the new rice varieties, and the ministry announced the commercial release of HT Basmati rice varieties.
“This act of releasing Herbicide Tolerant and Genetically Edited rice constitutes a blatant and deliberate contempt of the judicial process and is also in direct contravention of the judgment subsequently delivered by this Hon’ble Court on 23,07.2024. The said judgment directed the Union of India to first evolve a comprehensive National Policy on GM crops through a consultative process involving experts, state governments, and all stakeholders, and made it clear that no such GM crop shall be released without such a policy in place. The Court also recorded that an application filed by the Union seeking discharge from earlier undertakings was not allowed,” the petition notes.
“The release of HT rice, being both an HT crop and one situated within the Centre of Origin of rice (India) is doubly prohibited under the TEC recommendations and the legal regime governing GMOs, including the 1989 Rules framed under the Environment Protection Act, 1986,” the petition states, citing professors PC Kesavan (geneticist), Jack Heinanmann (of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, UK) and Michael Antoniou (of the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College, London), who have all affirmed that “HT crops, regardless of the method of genetic alteration – whether through transgenesis, chemical mutagenesis or genome editing – remain HT crops and carry the same biosafety and environmental risks.”
The petition noted the risk to public health – Imazethapyr, the herbicide associated with rice, is banned in the European Union. It is linked with carcinogenicity, groundwater contamination, and acceleration of bacterial antibiotic resistance. The capacity of herbicides to induce mutations in bacterial leading to evolution of antibiotic resistance is recorded in scientific literature.
Across several states, sowing of HT varieties of rice has occurred, since its release by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research. The petition notes that this has caused “irreversible contamination of India’s priceless rice germplasm – comprising over 80,000 accessions – and threatening India’s global position as a leading exporter of non-GMO Basmati rice.”
The contempt petition highlights the collapse of the regulatory framework in India, and records the conflict of interest at multiple levels at ICAR, Department of Biotechnology and GEAC, all charged with regulation, while also involved in the development and promotion of GM crops. “ICAR has entered MoUs with Bayer-Monsanto and other multinational agrochemical companies, effectively compromising its neutrality,” the petition states.
The press release from the government of May 2025 attempted to differentiate between genetic engineering and “genome editing”, explaining that the new rice varieties were produced using genome-editing technology based on CRISPR-Cas, “which makes precise changes in the organisms genetic material without adding foreign DNA”. The press release asserted that “genome editing of SDN 1 and SDN 2 types of genes has been approved under India’s biosafety regulations for general crops”.
A section of the press release is worth quoting at length:
“The DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) variety was developed by ICAR-IIRR, Hyderabad, based on Samba Mahsuri (BPT 5204). Its objective is to increase the number of grains per panicle and it matures 20 days earlier (~130 days). Due to its shorter duration, it helps save water and fertilizers and reduces methane gas emissions. Its stalk is strong and does not fall. The rice quality is similar to the original variety, Samba Mahsuri.
The second variety, Pusa DST Rice 1, was developed by ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, based on MTU 1010. This variety can increase yields by 9.66% to 30.4% in saline and alkaline soils, with the potential for up to 20% increase in production.
These varieties have been developed for states such as Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Kerala (Zone VII), Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh (Zone V), Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal (Zone III).
The development of these varieties is a significant step toward India’s goal of becoming a developed nation and promoting sustainable agriculture. In the 2023-24 budget, the Government of India allocated ₹500 crores for genome editing in agricultural crops. ICAR has already initiated genome-editing research for several crops, including oilseeds and pulses.”
It is significant that in a matter of such gravity, the Supreme Court has allowed judgment to remain pending for nearly two years, from January 2024.
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments