Allowing GM Foods Into India’s Food Chain Without Strict Standards Undermine Right To Life: Rajasthan High Court Issues Directions To FSSAI, Centre

The Rajasthan High Court has issued certain directions to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Central Government with regard to the regulations on genetically modified (GM) foods.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was preferred before the Jaipur Bench, concerning Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) which vests the Central Government/FSSAI with the authority to frame detailed regulations governing the manufacture, sale, import and distribution of genetically engineered foods.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed, “This gap in regulations has allowed GM foods quietly enter into the Indian market. Allowing GM foods into India’s food chain without strict standards and regulations would undermine the fundamental right to life. To permit corporate or commercial interests to override public health would be unjust and contrary to Constitutional ethos. Therefore, GM foods stuffs whether grown domestically or imported, including edible oils cannot be permitted to reach Indian kitchens without comprehensive legal checks, as already cautioned by parliamentary committees.”

The Bench referred to Brahmanandavalli (2nd Anuvaka), verse 1 of Taittiriya Upanishad which reads: "Indeed, all species of living beings on Earth originate from food; therefore, they live by food and in the end, they merge back into food. Since among all created substances, food is the oldest, it is called the ‘Supreme Medicine’ of the entire universe."

The Court said that the above verse reveals food as the primordial source, sustainer, and ultimate destination of all life forms in the Cosmos.

Kritesh Oswal was present in person. Advocate Pratyush Sharma represented the Petitioners, while ASG R. D. Rastogi represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

Question that arose in the PIL was whether, in the absence of regulations, the legislative scheme envisaged under Section 22 of FSSA has been rendered nugatory, thereby frustrating the very objectives of the said provision and leaving the statutory framework incomplete and unenforceable. Another question raised was as to what is the appropriate course of action until such regulations are formulated and notified to ensure protection of public health and consumer interests? These matters formed the very basis of PIL.

The PIL raised concerns regarding the sale, manufacture, distribution or import of genetically modified articles of food in India, in violation of Section 22 of FSSA. The Petitioners highlighted the issue of absence of Food Safety Standards and proper regulatory mechanism regarding Genetically Modified/Genetically Engineered Food in India.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, said, “Food is the foundation of life, sustaining not merely the physical body but nourishing the very essence of human existence and consciousness. The profound wisdom embedded in our ancient Vedic scriptures establishes food safety as the supreme principle underlying all existence.”

The Court referred to verse 6.5.4 of Chandogya Upanishad which reads, "O Somya, the mind is nourished by food, prāṇa by water, and speech by fire."

The Court remarked that food constitutes not merely physical sustenance but forms the very essence of mental faculties and also consciousness and the finest portion of consumed food ascends to create the mind, establishing an inextricable connection between physical nourishment and intellectual capacity.

“… access to safe and nutritious food is not a privilege but an inalienable right essential for human dignity and existence”, it added.

Whether there is an urgent need for the regulations to be framed for Explanation-2 of Section 22 of the Act of 2006?

The Court with regard to the first issue, noted, “It is astonishing that while the issue of genetically modified organisms in edible products is a matter of significant concern, yet the relevant regulations have not been finalized and notified by the Central Government. Although the FSSAI has been established, yet the GEAC has been allowed to approve the import of GM edible oil in India under the “Abeyance Notifications,” solely due to the absence of regulations under Section 22 of the 2006 Act.”

The Court observed that apart from the statutory requirement, India being signatory to UNCBD read with the Cartagena Protocol, is under obligation to provide specific statutory regime, however, there is complete vacuum regarding safety standards/regulatory mechanism relating to genetically modified/genetically engineered articles of food in India.

“A plain reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2006 Act clearly reveals the intent behind introducing special legislation for Food Safety Standards in India, with a distinct emphasis on genetically modified food. However, the said specific objective of regulating genetically modified food, as envisioned under the 2006 Act, has remained unfulfilled due to the respondent authorities' failure to frame the necessary regulations under Section 22 of the Act”, it further said.

The Court was of the view that unlike conventional foods, genetically engineered products involve the introduction of foreign genes, bacterial and viral vectors, viral promoters, and antibiotic marker systems into the food supply; and these genetic constructs, often referred to as "genetic cassettes," are novel to the human diet and, therefore, warrant thorough and rigorous safety testing before widespread consumption.

“The need to establish food safety standards and a regulatory framework prior to approving GM articles of food is rooted in the ‘Precautionary Principle’. The regulatory regime for the GM foods in India began with the Rules of 1989. Yet, in practice, over these three decades, the regulatory execution has been inconsistent, creating substantial gaps that put public confidence and food safety at risk. The framing of such regulations is not only important but critically necessary”, it also noted.

The Court said that a Constitutional Court cannot remain a passive spectator to such a serious lapse in the discharge of statutory obligations by the FSSAI and the Union of India and accordingly, issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities under the FSSA to frame the requisite regulations on genetically modified food within a stipulated timeframe.

Whether the permission/approval for manufacture, distribute, sale or import GM articles of food can be granted in absence of regulations framed under Section 22 of the Act of 2006?

The Court in view of the second issue, said, “… no permission or approval for the sale, manufacture, distribution or import of genetically modified (GM) food can be validly granted unless the requisite regulations under Section 22 of the 2006 Act are first brought into effect.”

The Court observed that until such regulations are duly formulated and notified, no authority can be permitted to grant any approval for the use, sale, manufacture, or import of genetically modified or engineered food in India.

“Food safety, cannot be seen as a mere regulatory or market issue, rather its a constitutional imperative enshrined under Article 21 aimed at protecting public health and securing a dignified quality life to every citizen. … The Current population of nearly 1.46 billion, poses enormous responsibility upon the State to ensure health and well being of its citizens. Despite numerous progressive steps, even today, for millions of households, affordability of food still outweighs the food safety”, it remarked.

Furthermore, the Court said that the import of any edible food items into India be allowed only upon the production of a “GM-Free Certificate” issued by the competent authority of the exporting country.

Whether Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 is ultra vires?

With respect to the third issue, the Court reiterated, “… it is a well-established principle of law that a statutory provision or rule can be declared ultra vires only when there is a clear, convincing, and strong demonstration that it is violative of a constitutional provision or that it exceeds the legislative authority granted by the parent statute.”

The Court, therefore, held that the challenge given to Rule 6(7) of the Rules, 2011 in the case clearly fails.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court emphasised the need for dynamism and promptness in framing the requisite regulations, particularly where the statute itself mandates such exercise.

“This requirement becomes even more pressing when the same has a direct and vital bearing on public health. In this backdrop, the maxim salus populi suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) assumes paramount relevance and must guide the timely and effective discharge of the statutory obligation”, it concluded.

The Court issued the following directions –

(i) The Respondent-FSSAI as well as the Union of India shall implement Section 22 of the Act of 2006 in its true letter and spirit and to provide standards and safety protocols regarding genetically modified / genetically engineered articles of food in a time bound manner.

(ii) The Respondent-FSSAI as well as the Union of India shall frame and notify the regulations under Section 22 of the Act of 2006 regarding GM articles of food, after following the procedure provided under the Act of 2006, preferably within a period of six months.

(iii) The FSSAI as well as GEAC are restrained for granting any permission for sale, manufacture, distribute or import of any genetically modified foodstuffs / edible items in India without first framing the regulations under Section 22 of the Act of 2006.

(iv) The FSSAI as well as Union of India shall ensure that no import of any food-stuff / edible items / packaged food shall be permitted unless they have been certified and labelled to be “GM free”, by the exporting country.

(v) The customs authorities as well port authorities across the State shall ensure strict compliance of the above-mentioned directions.

(vi) The constitutional challenge given to Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 fails and therefore, the Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 is upheld.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the PIL and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Kritesh Oswal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:31237-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Pratyush Sharma

Respondents: ASG R. D. Rastogi, Advocates Devesh Yadav, Yatharth Asopa, Chinmay Surolia Priya Khushalani, and Mudit Singhvi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment