“Earth teaches us patience, love; Air teaches us mobility, liberty; Fire teaches us warmth, courage; Sky teaches us equality, broad-mindedness; Water teaches us purity, cleanliness.”

State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655, speaking through Venkatachaliah J, observed, “‘Every source from which man has increased his power has been used to diminish prospects of his successors’.” Sacred texts have proffered to worship and respect nature and impel mankind to preserve same. This, in essence, is Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 SCC 363 reasoned, “present generation has no right to deplete all existing forests and leave nothing for next and future generations”. Also see, Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281 and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 222. It is too late to even entertain, protection of our natural environment and ecology is not a constitutional imperative. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577 held, a hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to a healthy life. State argued before Supreme Court of Netherlands in State of Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy) v. Stichting Urgenda, 19/00135, a decision to fulfil obligations under environmental law is within policy domain and cannot be interfered with by Courts of law. Netherland’s Supreme Court repelled same.

Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This principle has also been expressed in the Latin maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius‘. Court has applied this maxim in: Parbhani Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority Aurangabad, (1960) 3 SCR 177; Union of India v. Charanjit S. Gill, (2000) 5 SCC 742; Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502; Kameng Dolo v. Atum Welly, (2017) 7 SCC 512; Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thanjore v. G. Thambidurai, (2017) 12 SCC 642.

Absence of reasons is clearly suggestive of being legally unsustainable. A consideration of views of pertinent States by a regional or national consultation would have been wholesome.

Decision of Union of India, dated 25.10.2022, as well as Recommendation of GEAC, dated 18.10.2022, are liable to be set aside.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Gene Campaign v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004].

Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi, (1978) 2 SCC 102 expounded, power to do a thing necessarily carries with it power to regulate the manner in which the thing may be done. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673 held, if two views are possible and Government takes one of it, it would not be amenable to judicial review on the ground, the other view, according to Court, is a better view. R.F. Nariman J, while dissenting in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, observed, manifest arbitrariness  must be something done by Legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle; also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. State of U.P. v. Abhay Nandan Inter College, (2021) 15 SCC 600 observed, a policy decision is presumed to be in public interest, and such a decision once made is not amenable to challenge, until and unless there is manifest or extreme arbitrariness. 

Whether or not State allows or disallows scientific experimentation of a particular kind of crop, particularly when Central Government is entrusted with such function, is a decision squarely within their domain and role of Courts therein is circumscribed to violation of fundamental rights; manifest arbitrariness; conflict with any other law and/or other grounds of similar nature. I am unable to find any aspect of manifest arbitrariness to have been met; neither in limited pleadings made before Court nor in extensive arguments advanced.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Gene Campaign v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004].