Are genetically modified crops safe enough?

Sakshi - October 15, 2012

A recent news report stated that the Planning Commission has advocated putting in place a “proper regulatory mechanism” before permitting the use of genetic modification in Indian crops. A recent Standing Committee report on genetically modified (GM) crops found shortcomings in the regulatory framework for such crops. The current framework is regulated primarily by two bodies: the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM). Given the inadequacy of the regulatory framework, the Standing Committee recommended that all research and development activities on transgenic crops be carried out only in containment (in laboratories) and that ongoing field trials in all states be discontinued. The blog provides a brief background on GM crops, their regulation in India and the key recommendations of the Standing Committee. What is GM technology? GM crops are usually developed through the insertion or deletion of genes from plant cells. Bt technology is a type of genetic modification in crops. It was introduced in India with Bt cotton. The debate around GM crops has revolved around issues of economic efficacy, human health, consumer choice and farmers’ rights. Some advantages of Bt technology are that it increases crop yield, decreases the use of pesticides, and improves quality of crops. However, the technology has also been known to cause crop loss due to resistance developed by pests and destruction of local crop varieties, impacting biodiversity. Approval process for commercial release of GM crops

Initially, the company developing the GM crop undertakes several biosafety assessments including, environmental, food, and feed safety assessments in containment.
This is followed by Bio-safety Research Trials which require prior approval of the regulators, the GEAC and the RCGM.
Approval for environmental release is accorded by the GEAC after considering the findings of bio-safety studies.
Finally, commercial release is permitted only for those GM crops found to be safe for humans and the environment.

Committee’s recommendations for strengthening the regulatory process The Standing Committee report found several shortcomings in the regulatory framework, some of which are as follows:

State governments are not mandatorily consulted for conducting open field trials on GM crops. Several states such as Kerala and Bihar have opposed field trials for GM crops. The Committee recommended that mandatory consultation with state governments be built into the regulatory process.
The key regulators, the GEAC and the RCGM, suffer from poor organisational set-up and infrastructure. The Committee recommended that the regulatory framework be given statutory backing so that there is no scope for ambiguity or complacency on the part of the authorities responsible for the oversight of GM organisms. It urged the government to introduce the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill.
There is evidence that the GEAC has not complied with international treaties. These include the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It recommended that legislation relating to liability and redress for damage arising from living modified organisms be enacted.
Some international scientists have raised doubts about the safety of Bt Brinjal and the way tests were conducted. To remedy this situation, the Committee recognised the need for an overarching legislation on biosafety to ensure that biotechnology is introduced without compromising the safety of biodiversity, human and livestock health, and environmental protection.

Note that over the last few sessions of Parliament, the government has listed the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill for introduction; however the Bill has not been introduced yet. The Bill sets up an independent authority for the regulation of GM crops. For a PRS summary of the report and access to the full report, see here and here.

Parliament

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021, in the context of the recent Supreme Court judgement

Aditya Kumar - August 2, 2021

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha today. It seeks to dissolve certain existing appellate bodies and transfer their functions (such as adjudication of appeals) to existing judicial bodies (mainly high courts) (see Table 1). It also amends the Finance Act, 2017, to bring certain provisions (such as qualifications, appointments, term of office, salaries and allowances of tribunal members) under the purview of the Bill. Currently, these provisions are notified through Rules under the Finance Act, 2017.

Note that the 2017 Act reorganised the Indian tribunal system to ensure uniformity in their administration by amalgamating certain tribunals based on the similarity in their functional domain. It also delegated powers to the central government to make Rules to provide for the qualifications, appointments, term of office, salaries and allowances, removal, and other conditions of service for chairpersons and members of these tribunals.

This Bill replaces an Ordinance with similar provisions that was promulgated in April 2021. The 2021 Ordinance was challenged in the Supreme Court over its compliance with past Supreme Court judgements. In July 2021, the Court struck down certain provisions of the Ordinance, such as the four-year term of office for members, and the minimum age bar of 50 years to be appointed as a member of a tribunal. Table 2 shows a detailed comparison of key provisions of the 2021 Bill with the 2021 Ordinance and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgement. The Bill does not conform to the judgement of the Supreme Court and retains the provisions of the Ordinance that were struck down by the Court.

For an analysis of the 2021 Ordinance, please see our note here. For more details on the evolution of the tribunal system in India, please see our note.

Table 1: Transfer of functions of key appellate bodies as proposed under the Bill

Appellate body	Role	Proposed entity
Appellate Tribunal under the Cinematograph Act, 1952	Adjudication of appeals against the Board of Film Certification	High Court
Appellate Board under the Trade Marks Act, 1999	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Registrar	High Court
Appellate Board under the Copyright Act, 1957	Adjudication of certain disputes and appeals against orders of the Registrar of Copyright. Disputes include those related to publications and term of the copyright	Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of a High Court*
Authority for Advance Rulings under the Customs Act, 1962	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Customs Authority for advance rulings	High Court
Appellate Board under The Patents Act, 1970	Adjudication of appeals against decisions of the Controller on certain matters. Matters include applications for patents and restoration of patents.	High Court
Airport Appellate Tribunal under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994	Adjudication of: disputes arising from the disposal of properties left on airport premises by unauthorised occupants, and for appeals against the order of an eviction officer	Central government, for disputes arising from the disposal of properties left on airport premises by unauthorised occupants. High Court, for appeals against orders of an eviction officer.
Airport Appellate Tribunal under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Highway Administration on matters including, grant of lease or licence of highway land, removal of unauthorised occupation, and prevention of damage to highway.	Civil Court^#
Appellate Tribunal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001	Adjudication of appeals against certain orders of Registrar or Plant Varieties and Farmer Rights Authority	High Court
Appellate Board under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Registrar	High Court

Notes: * Constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; # Refers to a Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Sources: The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021; Parent Acts of the appellate bodies; PRS.

Table 2: Key provisions in the 2021 Bill and the Ordinance vis-a-vis the Supreme Court judgements

Provisions	2021 Ordinance	Supreme Court Judgement of July 2021	2021 Bill
Term of office of Chairperson and members	Four-year term with eligibility for re-appointment.	The Court stated that a short tenure of members (such as three years) along with provisions of re-appointment increases the influence and control of the Executive over the judiciary. In a short tenure, by the time the members achieve the required knowledge, expertise and efficiency, one term gets over. This prevents enhancement of adjudicatory experience, thereby, impacting the efficacy of tribunals. The Court struck down the provision of four -year term and reiterated its past judgements, which recommended a five-year term with eligibility for re-appointment.	Same as that in Ordinance.
Minimum age requirement for appointment of Chairperson and members	50 years	The Court observed that the minimum age requirement of 50 years violates past Court judgements, where the Court has stated that advocates with at least 10 years of relevant experience must be eligible to be appointed as judicial members, as that is the qualification required for a High Court judge. Such a high age limit also prevents the recruitment of young talent. The provision was struck down.	Same as that in Ordinance.
Time limit for appointments	Preferably within three months from the date of the recommendations of the search-cum-selection committee.	The Court noted that not mandating the central government to make appointments within three months (from the date of recommendation of the search-cum-selection committee) leads to delay in the appointment of members. This impacts the functioning and efficacy of tribunals. The provision was struck down over non-compliance with past judgements, which mandated the appointments to be made within three months.	Same as that in Ordinance.
Number of recommendations for a post	Two names for each post.	The Court stated that the recommendations for appointment of members by the search-cum-selection committee should be final. The Executive must not be allowed to exercise any discretion in matter of appointments in a tribunal. The Court struck down the provision and reiterated its past judgement, which specified that the selection committee must suggest one name for each post. The Committee may recommend one name in wait list.	Same as that in Ordinance.

Sources: The Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021; The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021; Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 000502 of 2021; PRS.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Are genetically modified crops safe enough?

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021, in the context of the recent Supreme Court judgement

Recent Posts