Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 – Judicial Review of the decision taken by the bodies concerned in the matter of Genetically Modified Organisms is permissible- Directions issued: The respondent-Union of India is directed to evolve a National Policy with regard to GM crops in the realm of research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country. The said National Policy shall be formulated in consultation with all stakeholders, such as, experts in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, State Governments, representatives of the farmers, etc. The National Policy to be formulated shall be given due publicity. ii. For the aforesaid purpose, the MoEF&CC shall conduct a national consultation, preferably within the next four months, with the aim of formulating the National Policy on GM crops. The State Governments shall be involved in evolving the National Policy on GM crops. iii. Respondent – Union of India must ensure that all credentials and past records of any expert who participates in the decision-making process should be scrupulously verified and conflict of interest, if any, should be declared and suitably mitigated by ensuring representation to wide range of interests. Rules in this regard may be formulated having a statutory force. iv. In the matter of importing of GM food and more particularly GM edible oil, the respondent shall comply with the requirements of Section 23 of FSSA, 2006, which deals with packaging and labelling of foods.
Legal Maxim – Expressio unius est exclusio alterius- When a manner is specified for doing a certain thing, then all other modes for carrying out such act are expressly excluded -When a statute contemplates a specific procedure to be adhered to in order to arrive at a desired end, such procedure cannot be substituted by an alternative procedure which is not contemplated under the statute. Further, if an action is to be carried out by way of issuance of a particular statutory instrument on the basis of certain requirements, such action cannot be validly carried out by way of issuance of an instrument when the same is not contemplated under the statute [ Referred to Taylor vs. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 (“Taylor”) and Nazir Ahmad vs. King-Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1935-36) 63 IA 372 (“Nazir Ahmad”) – Parbhani Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Regional Transport Authority Aurangabad, (1960) 3 SCR 177 : AIR 1960 SC 801, Dipak Babaria vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502 , Kameng Dolo vs. Atum Welly, (2017) 7 SCC 512, Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thanjore vs. G. Thambidurai, (2017) 12 SCC 642, Union of India vs. Charanjit S. Gill, (2000) 5 SCC 742. (Para 42.19-42.20 of Justice BV Nagarathna opinion)