No GM Food Approval Without Section 22 Rules: Raj HC

No GM Food Approvals Until Section 22 Regulations Exist: Rajasthan High Court Directs FSSAI to Frame Them

Published: 8 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that no authority may approve the manufacture, sale, distribution or import of genetically modified (GM) food until regulations are framed under Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (paras 46-47, 52). Finding that the regulatory vacuum violates the right to safe food under Article 21, it directed FSSAI and the Union to frame them, preferably within six months, and required ‘GM free’ certification for food imports (paras 43, 63).

Key holdings

GEAC approvals under the 1989 Rules address environmental safety; GM food safety lies with FSSAI under the 2006 Act (paras 22, 44).

Without Section 22 regulations, no authority may approve the manufacture, sale, distribution or import of GM food (paras 46-47, 52).

The absence of GM food safety standards violates the right to safe food under Article 21, read with Article 47 (paras 31, 35, 43).

A writ court may direct the framing of subordinate legislation where the parent statute cannot otherwise be implemented (paras 40-42).

Rule 6(7) of the 2011 Rules, requiring ‘GM’ on labels, neither permits nor restricts GM food and is valid (paras 55-58).

Brief Facts

Three petitioners filed this public interest litigation in 2019 seeking a ban on GM food under Section 22 of the Act of 2006, withdrawal of approvals granted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), and the striking down of Rule 6(7) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which requires a ‘GM’ label (paras 5-6). They relied on the Health Ministry’s answer in the Lok Sabha that FSSAI had framed no GM food standards while GEAC had permitted GM edible oil imports between 2007 and 2015 (para 6). FSSAI admitted that no regulations had been notified, so GM food is not permitted to be sold (para 8).

Court's Findings

The Bench traced how GM food left GEAC’s control: the last abeyance notification lapsed on 31.03.2016, and Explanation 2 to Section 22 came into force on 02.11.2021, so GM food can now be governed only by the 2006 Act and its regulations (paras 20-22). None has been notified. The Union had told the Supreme Court in Vandana Shiva (2017) that such activity is permissible only under Section 22 regulations, and the 2022 draft regulations were never finalised (paras 24-26). Taking note of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports, as Kalpana Mehta permits, the Court found a complete regulatory vacuum (paras 27-30). That vacuum violates the right to safe food under Article 21, read with Article 47 (paras 31-35, 43). Courts cannot compel legislation, but K. Pushpavanam recognises an exception where a statute cannot be implemented without rule-making, so a mandamus could issue (paras 40-43). GEAC’s remit is environmental safety; food safety lies with FSSAI, and regulations are a precondition for any approval (para 44). Rule 6(7) only requires a label, operates in a different sphere and was upheld (paras 55-58).

Legal Principle

Where a statute allows an activity only as provided by regulations, the power to approve it becomes operative only once those regulations exist. No GM food may therefore be approved before Section 22 regulations are framed, and a writ court may direct their framing where the statute cannot otherwise be implemented (paras 40-45, 52).

Precedents Relied Upon

Vandana Shiva v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 173 of 2006) Supreme Court, order dated 11.08.2017
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 24, 25
The Union stated before the Supreme Court that no notification or regulation allowed any activity concerning genetically engineered and modified food, which is permissible only under regulations framed under Section 22 of the 2006 Act; the petition was disposed of with liberty to return once regulations are framed.
Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India 2018 (7) SCC 1
Applied Discussed at ¶ 29, 30
Parliamentary Standing Committee reports may be used as an aid to interpretation and noticed as the existence of a historical fact; judicial notice may be taken of them.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2013) 16 SCC 279
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 31
Food hazardous to public health threatens the right to life under Article 21, and food safety laws must be applied to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and health.

View all precedents (16)

Swami Achyutanand Tirth & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2016 (9) SCC 699
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 32
Inaction against synthetic and adulterated milk violated Article 21; directions issued for more effective implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai v. Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 986
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 33
Article 21 includes a right to safe food, and the State discharges its obligation by enforcing food safety norms (Gujarat High Court).
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 1983 SCC OnLine SC 323
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 35
The right to live with human dignity under Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy.
S.C. Prashar, Income-Tax Officer, Market Ward, Bombay & Anr. v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1356
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 37
The Statement of Objects and Reasons may be referred to in order to ascertain the circumstances and the mischief that led to the legislation.
Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020) 20 SCC 272
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 37
Courts may look to the purpose, object and real legislative intent so that the legislative exercise does not become futile.
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki 1992 SCC (Supp) 1 548
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 40
A constitutional court cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling the State to enact legislation.
Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam (2023) 20 SCC 736
Applied Discussed at ¶ 40, 42, 43
No mandamus lies to a legislature to legislate, except where a statute cannot be effectively implemented unless a rule-making power is exercised.
Makhan Lal v. Union Territory of J&K MANU/JK/0395/2020
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 41, 42
Where a statute enjoins a mandatory duty on the executive to frame rules and citizens have a corresponding right, a writ of mandamus cannot be denied (Jammu and Kashmir High Court).
Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P. (2015) 13 SCC 722
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 45
Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, without deviating from the prescribed procedure.
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 45
If the manner of doing an act is prescribed by statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 3 SCC 709
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 57
A provision can be invalidated only on a clear demonstration that it is without legal basis or plainly violates the Constitution.
Anurag Kumar Agarwal v. Nikunj Dayal (2024) 12 SCC 345
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 57, 58
Subordinate legislation carries a presumption of validity, and the grounds on which it can be challenged are limited.
Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115/2004) 2024 SCC Online SC 1793
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 59, 60, 61
The Supreme Court split on GEAC’s approval for environmental release of DMH-11 mustard and referred that question to a larger Bench, but directed a National Policy on GM crops; the Section 22 issue was not raised there, and the High Court found support for its view in those directions.

No GM Food Approvals Until Section 22 Regulations Exist: Rajasthan High Court Directs FSSAI to Frame Them

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused

Rajasthan High Court Restores LIC Employee’s Full Suspension Pay After Acquittal