The use of genetically modified crops raises a vital issue for consideration, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, as it set out to hear a clutch of petitions, with the earliest filed in 2004, on introducing a stringent and transparent bio-safety test protocol in the public domain for genetically modified organisms before their release into the environment.

“This is a vital issue. Why has it been pending since 2004? We have to examine this issue in a wholesome manner,” a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol said as it took up petitions filed by NGO Gene Campaign in 2004, activist Aruna Rodrigues in 2005 and Research Foundation for Science and Technology in 2006 followed by others on this issue.

Besides the petitions, there was an application moved by the Centre for permission to proceed with the second sowing season of GM mustard. In November 2022, the Centre had given an undertaking not to take any “precipitative action” on GM mustard while expecting the hearing of the matter to conclude soon.

Also Read | Centre seeks to withdraw assurance that it won’t cultivate GM Mustard

However, the hearings in the case was concluded before a bench headed by justice Dinesh Maheshwari, but before a decision could be given, justice Maheshwari retired in May 2023, requiring the matter to be heard afresh. Last year, the Centre moved another application to allow its undertaking to be withdrawn, which is still pending.

Instead of dealing with the application on GM mustard, the top court on Tuesday asked the petitioners and Centre to provide an overview of the main issue at hand. “We have to go into the legality of these actions under the statute and relevant rules. We don’t want any ad-hocism. Instead of the application, we can decide the main matter itself,” the bench observed.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that in May 2012, the Supreme Court constituted a technical expert committee to decide whether there should be any ban, partial or otherwise, on open field trials of GMOs. The panel gave its report a year later, raising concerns over permitting open field trials.

Also Read | Section of experts, farmers not in favour of genetically modified mustard

“The GMO poses known and unknown risks to human and animal health, environment and soil health,” Bhushan said. He referred to the latest decision of the Centre to introduce the transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 that got clearance for commercial cultivation from the genetic engineering appraisal committee under the environment ministry on October 18, 2022.

So far, only one GM crop, Bt cotton, has been approved for commercial cultivation. The DMH-11, developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants at Delhi university is currently being sown for research purposes at eight designated sites of Indian Council for Agricultural Research before to its release into the environment.

Bhushan informed the Court that the hybrid mustard variety has been introduced by the Centre to increase yields and to end the country’s dependance on edible oil imports. The Centre has filed an affidavit in response to his application challenging release of DMH-11 mustard crop, where it admits that reports available so far do not indicate that DMH-11 “outperforms” non-GMO or traditional mustard yield.

“Today, by using technology, vegetables and food crops harvested usually in winters are being grown in summers,” the bench observed. “You cannot go against nature.”

Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the Centre and submitted that several steps have been taken by the government since the earlier order passed by the court. “In the course of these proceedings, developments have taken place. While considering this issue, the court may examine the steps taken by the government and whether something more needs to be done,” Venkataramani said.

As the hearing remained inconclusive, the bench posted the matter for further consideration on Wednesday.

The Centre is keen not to lose on another sowing season and has sought orders from the court to continue with the research on the DMH-11 crops. During the arguments in the case last August, the Centre informed the court that 12 years of research has gone behind this project and the environmental release of the GM mustard over four successive sowing seasons will aid scientists in gathering findings considered crucial for achieving higher mustard productivity.

However, the court has expressed concerns on allowing the Centre to go ahead without knowing whether the damage caused to environment will be irreversible. In August, the court had observed, “If we discharge you from your undertaking, what remains in this matter? You cannot be allowed to release GMO into the environment. The environmental harm cannot be reversed.”

The Centre has claimed that mustard is the most important edible oil and seed meal crop in the country. The bulk of the edible oil demand, nearly 55% to 60%, is met through imports. The development of indigenous transgenic varieties of mustard will increase agricultural output and farmer incomes, said the application filed by the Centre for being permitted further sowing of DMH-11.