GM Mustard DMH-11 Split Verdict: SC in Gene Campaign (2024)

GM Mustard Split Verdict: Supreme Court Divided on DMH-11 Approval, Orders National Policy on GM Crops

Published: 20 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A two-judge Bench split on the 2022 approval for environmental release of genetically modified mustard DMH-11. Justice Nagarathna held it vitiated for want of reasons and contrary to the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine; Justice Karol upheld it as an expert decision bound by strict conditions. Agreeing that such decisions are open to judicial review, the Bench directed a National Policy on GM crops and sent the DMH-11 question to the Chief Justice (Order, paras 1-3).

Key holdings

Judicial review of decisions taken by the bodies concerned with GMOs is permissible (Order, para 1).

The Union must frame a National Policy on GM crops after consulting all stakeholders, including the States (Order, para 2).

Experts taking GM decisions must have their records verified and conflicts of interest declared (Order, para 2).

Imported GM food, including edible oil, must meet the labelling rules in Section 23 of the FSS Act (Order, para 2).

The split on the DMH-11 approval goes to the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate Bench (Order, para 3).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Public-interest petitions filed from 2004 sought a moratorium on releasing genetically modified organisms, a National Policy and changes to the 1989 Rules, and the Court appointed a Technical Expert Committee whose report was placed before it (Karol J., paras 2-5, 11). Delhi University's Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants applied on 15.09.2015 for environmental release of the transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 (Nagarathna J., para 42). After years of deferral, the GEAC recommended release on 18.10.2022 and the Union approved it on 25.10.2022, subject to conditions such as a four-year approval and post-release monitoring (Karol J., para 24).

Court's Findings

Nagarathna J. held that the GEAC reversed its stand without reasons at its 147th meeting, attended by only fourteen members and relying on an expert committee formed weeks earlier, after the applicant wrote directly to the Minister; the approval was vitiated and breached the public trust (paras 42-43). Following the Technical Expert Committee, she found concerns about indigenous mustard and pollinators such as honeybees well founded, held that the process violated the precautionary principle, and quashed the approval (paras 46, 48-49). Karol J. disagreed: the 1989 Rules and the GEAC's composition were valid, the conditional approval reflected a scientific, development-oriented choice by an expert body and was not vitiated by non-application of mind, and field trials with safeguards did not breach the precautionary principle (Karol J., paras 33, 46, 49). Whether to ban herbicide-tolerant crops, or how much weight to give India's status as a centre of mustard diversity, was for experts and policy makers (Karol J., paras 47-48). He directed strict monitoring of the trials and human-health testing before any commercial release (Karol J., para 50).

Legal Principle

Decisions of regulatory bodies on genetically modified organisms are open to judicial review, and both opinions treat the precautionary principle as part of Indian environmental law; they differed on whether the DMH-11 approval met it, so that question awaits a fresh Bench (Order, paras 1, 3).

Precedents Relied Upon

Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33, 48
The precautionary principle is part of the law of the land and an essential feature of sustainable development (both opinions; Nagarathna J. paras cited).
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 3, 30
Under the public trust doctrine the State holds natural resources in trust and cannot convert them to private or commercial use (Nagarathna J.).
Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India (2005) 10 SCC 510
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 48
The precautionary principle is well entrenched and governs the law in light of Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) (Nagarathna J.).

View all precedents (5)

V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (2009) 14 SCC 85
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 42
A statutory authority must apply its own mind and scrupulously follow the prescribed procedure (Nagarathna J.).
State of U.P. v. Abhay Nandan Inter College (2021) 15 SCC 600
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 45
A policy decision is presumed to be in the public interest and is not open to challenge unless manifestly arbitrary (Karol J.).

Statutory Provisions