Legal Framework Governing Genetically Modified Crops in India: Assess ing Regulatory Gaps
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/jes.2023.39.1.2Keywords:
GM Crops, Environment, Food, Safety, GEAC, WHOAbstract
The effective legal structure for regulating genetically modified (GM) crops in India is essential to maintain a balance between agricultural advancements and environmental protection. Every individual has the right to live in a healthy and safe environment, but emerging technologies, such as genetic modifications in agriculture, pose new challenges to these rights. GM crops are increasingly recognized as a potential solution to global food shortages, which are exacerbated by climate change, frequent droughts, floods, and nutritional deficiencies. Through biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering, crops can be enhanced to improve yield efficiency, resist pests and withstand harsh climates. India primarily regulates GM crops under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, with oversight from the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) formulated under 1989 rules. However, despite these frameworks, regulatory gaps persist in biosafety, transparency, and public engagement, raising concerns about unforeseen environmental effects. Unlike the large-scale monoculture farming seen in industrialized nations, India’s diverse and small-scale agricultural system requires a more careful and adaptive approach to GM technology. The interaction between GM crops and native flora presents risks to genetic diversity, especially for species native to India. This paper explores shortcomings in India’s GM crop regulation and judicial perspectives.
Downloads
References
State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655
Sudha Rani, M., Satish, Y., Rani, C., Prasad, N. V. V. S. D., Bharathi, S., Sri Lakshmi, B., & Ratna Kumari, S. (2018). History, status, and impact of genetically modified crops in India. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(5), 2735-2739.
Maurya, A. K., & Siwal, A. (2021). Current legal status of GM crops in India with special reference to intellectual property laws. NUJS Journal of Regulatory Studies, 6(1). Available at : [https://www.nujs.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/File-106.pdf]
World Health Organization. (2014).Food, genetically modified. WHO Newsroom. Available at : [https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified]
Nyika, J., Yadav, S., Mackolil, J., G, R. P., Workie, E., & Ramasundaram, P. (2022). Genetically modified foods: Bibliometric analysis on consumer perception and preference. GM Crops & Food, 13(1), 65–85 [https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2038525]
Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A., Singh, A., Jha, A., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: Current status and future prospects.Planta,251(4), 91. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8]
Supreme Court of India. (2024). Gene Campaign & Another v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1793
Shukla, M., Al-Busaidi, K. T., Trivedi, M., & Tiwari, R. K. (2018) Status of research, regulations and challenges for genetically modified crops in India, GM Crops & Food, Vol. 9, Issue 4, 173–188. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2018.1529518]
Hui-Lin Yu, Yun-He Li, Kong-Ming Wu, Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects of Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Crops on Non-Target Organisms. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, Vol. 53, Issue 7. 520-538. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01047.x]
Hui-Lin Yu, Yun-He Li, Kong-Ming Wu, Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects of Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Crops on Non-Target Organisms. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, Vol. 53, Issue 7. 520-538. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01047.x]
Hui-Lin Yu, Yun-He Li, Kong-Ming Wu, Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects of Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Crops on Non-Target Organisms. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, Vol. 53, Issue 7. 520-538. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01047.x]
Hui-Lin Yu, Yun-He Li, Kong-Ming Wu, Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects of Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Crops on Non-Target Organisms. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, Vol. 53, Issue 7. 520-538. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01047.x]
Government of India. (1950). Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List II, Entry 14: Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases.
Government of India. (1950). Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List III, Entry 33(b): Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply, and distribution of foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils.
Government of India. (1950). Constitution of India, Schedule VII, List I, Entry 97: Any other matter not listed in List II or List III, including taxes not mentioned in those lists.
Government of India. (1976). Constitution of India, Article 48A: Protection and improvement of the environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.
Government of India. (1976). Constitution of India, Article 51A(g): Duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to show compassion for living creatures.
Constitution of India, Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Government of India. (1950). Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 52: Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest.
Government of India. (2006). Food Safety and Standards Act, Section 2: Declaration as to expediency of control by the Union.
Government of India. (2006). Food Safety and Standards Act, Section 22: Genetically modified foods, organic foods, functional foods, proprietary foods, etc.
Government of India. (1989). Rules for the manufacture, use, import, export, and storage of hazardous microorganisms/genetically engineered organisms or cells. Ministry of Environment & Forests. Retrieved from : http://geacindia.gov.in/resource-documents/biosafety-regulations/acts-and-rules/Rules-for-the-manufacture-use-import-export-and-storage-1989.pdf]
Government of India. (2016). Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Plants: A Guide for Stakeholders. Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). Available at :
Government of India. (2017). Regulations and Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research and Biocontainment. Department of Biotechnology. Available at :
Supreme Court of India. (2024). Gene Campaign & Another v. Union of India2024 SCC OnLine SC 1793, Para 44.1
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, and Forests. (2017). Genetically modified crops and its impact on environment. PRS India. Retrieved from : [https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/genetically-modified-crops-and-its-impact-on-environment]
Supreme Court of India. (2023). Judgment in (2023) 1 SCC 329
Supreme Court of India. (2023). Judgment in (2023) 1 SCC 329, paragraphs 34-36.
Supreme Court of India. (2019). Judgment in (2019) 15 SCC 401
Supreme Court of India. (2021). Judgment in (2021) 4 SCC 309
Supreme Court of India. (1991). M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 353
Supreme Court of India. (1990). Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613
Supreme Court of India. (1991). Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 598
Supreme Court of India. (1995). Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577
Supreme Court of India. (2000). M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000) 6 SCC 213
Supreme Court of India. (1996). Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212
Weale, A., O'Riordan, T. and Kramme, E. 1991. Controlling Pollution in the Round. London: Anglo German Foundation. Also refer O’Riordan, Timothy, and Andrew Jordan. “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics.” Environmental Values 4, no. 3 (1995): 191–312. Available at : https://www.environmentandsociety.org/mml/precautionary-principle-contemporary-environmental-politics
Weale, A., O'Riordan, T. and Kramme, E. 1991. Controlling Pollution in the Round. London: Anglo German Foundation. Also refer O’Riordan, Timothy, and Andrew Jordan. “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics.” Environmental Values 4, no. 3 (1995): 191–312. Available at : https://www.environmentandsociety.org/mml/precautionary-principle-contemporary-environmental-politics
Weale, A., O'Riordan, T. and Kramme, E. 1991. Controlling Pollution in the Round. London: Anglo German Foundation. Also refer O’Riordan, Timothy, and Andrew Jordan. “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics.” Environmental Values 4, no. 3 (1995): 191–312. Available at : https://www.environmentandsociety.org/mml/precautionary-principle-contemporary-environmental-politics
Supreme Court of India. (1996). Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, . (1996) 5 SCC 647
Supreme Court of India. (1999). A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 718
Supreme Court of India. (2024). Gene Campaign & Another v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1793, Para 50
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, and Forests. (2017). Genetically modified crops and its impact on environment. PRS India. Retrieved from : [https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/genetically-modified-crops-and-its-impact-on-environment]
Supreme Court of India. (2024). T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2008 (9) SCC 711
Supreme Court of India. (2024). Gene Campaign & Another v. Union of India., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1793
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Extension Systems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
