The Supreme Court urged to urgently hear contempt petitions alleging that the Centre had violated its 2024 judgment on genetically modified (GM) crops, following allegations that herbicide-tolerant GM basmati rice had been approved for cultivation.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised the matter before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, seeking an early hearing of the pending petitions.
Bhushan argued that the contempt proceedings arose from the Supreme Court’s common judgment of July 23, 2024, and were separate from a reference concerning GM mustard currently being considered by a special three-judge bench. He requested that the petitions be listed before the regular contempt bench.
According to Bhushan, the contempt petition, filed in 2025, had not been heard despite earlier attempts to mention the matter before the court. He said the special bench dealing with the GM mustard reference had declined to take up the contempt proceedings.
The petition was filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues as part of her public interest litigation on genetically modified crops. It seeks contempt proceedings against senior government officials, alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s directions concerning the environmental release of GM and gene-edited crops.
Dispute over GM basmati rice
The petition alleges that herbicide-tolerant basmati rice varieties marketed under the name RobiNOweed were commercially released in May 2024. It further claims that gene-edited rice varieties, including DRR Rice 100, marketed as Kamla, and Pusa DST Rice 1, were released in May 2025.
Rodrigues’ plea contends that these developments were inconsistent with the government’s earlier assurances to the court that no environmental release of GM crops would take place before a comprehensive national policy was formulated.
In its July 23, 2024, judgment, the Supreme Court directed the government to formulate a comprehensive national policy on genetically modified crops through a consultative process involving scientific experts, state governments and other stakeholders. The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol resulted in a split verdict on one issue, which was referred to a larger bench.
Bhushan argued that the pending contempt petitions could be considered independently of the issue referred to the larger bench.
Concerns over contamination and crop protection
Raising concerns about the alleged release of herbicide-tolerant GM basmati rice, Bhushan warned that the varieties could threaten the integrity of India’s basmati crop and lead to contamination. These assertions form part of the arguments presented in support of an urgent hearing.
The dispute brings renewed attention to regulatory oversight of genetically modified crops in India, particularly the relationship between agricultural innovation, environmental safeguards and the protection of established crop varieties.
The contempt petitions now seek judicial scrutiny of whether the alleged releases complied with the Supreme Court’s directions and the assurances previously given by the government. The allegations remain subject to consideration by the court.