GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Per B.V. Nagarathna, J.: GEAC’s 18.10.2022 recommendation and the Union’s 25.10.2022 decision to permit environmental release of DMH-11 were vitiated by procedural irregularities, lack of adequate application of mind, failure to follow TEC and Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations, failure to ensure publication of the biosafety dossier and absence of required pre-release health and long-term studies (chronic/transgenerational) and State/stakeholder consultation; these failures violated the precautionary principle and the right to a safe and healthy environment under Article 21, and the approvals were quashed. (Separate opinion by Sanjay Karol, J. reached contrary conclusions...

Parties
Petitioner: Gene Campaign & Anr.; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No.115 of 2004 (batch) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment (23 July 2024)
Outcome
Writ petitions disposed. Per Nagarathna, J. GEAC recommendation dated 18.10.2022 and Central Government decision dated 25.10.2022 regarding environmental release of DMH-11 quashed; per Sanjay Karol, J. separate opinion upheld GEAC’s conditional approval; matter placed before Chief Justice of India to constitute...
Legal Topics
Genetically Modified Organisms (gmos), Precautionary Principle, Public Trust Doctrine, Biosafety, Risk Assessment, Environmental Release, Herbicide Tolerant Crops, Labelling, Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Environmental Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Food and Drug Regulation Biotechnology Regulation Genetically Modified Organisms (gmos) Precautionary Principle Public Trust Doctrine +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gene Campaign & Anr.

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No.115 of 2004 (batch) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment (23 July 2024)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether GEAC approval dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 for environmental release of DMH-11 was in accordance with law
  2. 2 Whether the decision to grant approval for environmental release of DMH-11 violated the right to a safe and healthy environment under Article 21
  3. 3 Whether GEAC’s grant of approval and the decision for environmental release of DMH-11 violated the precautionary principle

Ratio Decidendi

Per B.V. Nagarathna, J.: GEAC’s 18.10.2022 recommendation and the Union’s 25.10.2022 decision to permit environmental release of DMH-11 were vitiated by procedural irregularities, lack of adequate application of mind, failure to follow TEC and Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations, failure to ensure publication of the biosafety dossier and absence of required pre-release health and long-term studies (chronic/transgenerational) and State/stakeholder consultation; these failures violated the precautionary principle and the right to a safe and healthy environment under Article 21, and the approvals were quashed. (Separate opinion by Sanjay Karol, J. reached contrary conclusions...

Court Disposition

Writ petitions disposed. Per Nagarathna, J. GEAC recommendation dated 18.10.2022 and Central Government decision dated 25.10.2022 regarding environmental release of DMH-11 quashed; per Sanjay Karol, J. separate opinion upheld GEAC’s conditional approval; matter placed before Chief Justice of India to constitute...

Orders

  • GEAC approval dated 18.10.2022 and Union decision dated 25.10.2022 quashed (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.)
  • MoEF&CC/GEAC to upload the applicant’s biosafety dossier on GEAC website and keep it available for public comment for at least 30 days