Supreme Court of India directs the Government of Rajasthan to consider proposals for renewal of mining leases and statutory permissions for mining in Aravalli hills
The Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors.1 directed the Government of Rajasthan to consider the proposals for renewal of mining leases granted for operations in the Aravalli hills/ranges, as identified in the Forest Survey of India Report dated August 25, 2010 ("FSI Report"). The Supreme Court clarified that the final permission for undertaking such activity will not be granted without obtaining its prior approval. The applicants approached the Supreme Court in view of its earlier Order dated May 9, 2024, wherein the State Government was allowed to consider and process the applications for grant/renewal of mining leases and other statutory clearances.
Supreme Court directs Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh to constitute a committee to verify allegations of disappearance of ponds/lakes/water bodies in Tehsil Nagina, Bijnor
The Supreme Court in the case of Mirza Abid Beg vs. State of U.P. and Ors.2 has directed the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh to constitute a committee comprising of officials from the Revenue Department, Environment Department and State Pollution Control Board ("SPCB") to inspect old revenue records of ponds/lakes/water bodies in Tehsil Nagina, Bijnor, U.P. and ascertain whether any new entries regarding the existence of ponds/lakes/water bodies have been made to these records. Further, the committee has been directed to suggest measures for restoration of the said ponds/lakes/water bodies. The Supreme Court emphasised the constitutional duty of the State to protect the ponds/lakes/water bodies and to ensure its restoration. The Supreme Court passed these directions while considering an appeal filed against the order of the National Green Tribunal ("NGT") which disposed of the application before it on the basis of a report stating that the garbage dumped in the pond had been removed.
Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on petitions challenging government approval granted for environmental release of genetically engineered mustard
The Supreme Court in the case of Gene Campaign and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.3 comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol have delivered a split decision in a batch of petitions challenging the trials and environmental release of genetically modified mustard and the rules governing them. The petitions were filed seeking directions to the Central Government to ensure that the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989 ("GEO Rules") should be brought in consonance with the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought directions to restraint the use of gene modification technology without having requisite safeguards and regulatory regimes in place. Another petition challenged the procedure adopted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee ("GEAC") for appraisal of Dhara Mustard Hybrid – 11 ("DMH-11"). It also alleged that the Assessment of Food/Feed and Environmental Safety ("AFES") Report considered by GEAC was inadequate, had discrepancy in its findings and lacked application of mind and comprehensive scientific scrutiny.
The judgement by Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that approval for environmental release of transgenic DMH – 11 was liable to be quashed and directed the GEAC to undertake a consultation with relevant stakeholders to decide whether transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11 is a Herbicide Tolerant ("HT") crop or not. Thereafter, a policy decision should be taken afresh on environmental release of the same. She also passed a general direction that the GEAC should be reformed to include experts in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, ethics, sociology, health and environment.
Justice Karol in his judgement opined that the ban on HT crops would be unwarranted as it should be a policy decision. The challenge to the constitutionality of the GEO Rules was also rejected. The judgment held that the decision of GEAC to grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of mind or any other principle of law.
The bench passed the common judgement that the judicial review of decision taken by bodies concerned in the matter of genetically modified organisms is permissible and directed the Central Government to consult stakeholders in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, state governments, representatives of farmers, etc. for evolving a National Policy on genetically modified crops. In view of the difference of opinion on the decision of GEAC granting conditional approval for environmental release of DMH – 11, the matter will be referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration of the matter before an appropriate bench.
Footnotes
1 I.A. No. 130612 of 2024 and I.A. No. 134904 of 2024 in W.P.(C) 202 of 1995. Order dated July 23, 2024.
2 C.A. No. 1904 of 2020. Order dated July 16, 2024
3 W.P. (C) No. 115 of 2004 etc.; Order dated July 23, 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.