Comments and Caveats on the GEAC’s Punjab GM Crop Trials – SpicyIP
[A big thanks to Daanish Naithani for his inputs in the post.]
If you were following the Genetically Modified (GM) crops dilemma last year but failed to keep up over the past year, don’t worry. Fortunately (and unfortunately, when seen in the broader scope), you haven’t really missed much. In July last year, as covered here on the blog, the Supreme Court (SC) delivered a split verdict on the commercial sale of Genetically Modified Mustard (GM Mustard) in India in Gene Campaign vs. Union of India (pdf). A Division Bench (DB) comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol issued two separate judgments. While Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Justice Karol upheld it. This left the implementation in limbo for the time being and left it to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to decide.
Even after a year, nothing’s new. It is rather disheartening to see CJIs changefrom former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud (till November 2024) to former CJI Sanjiv Khanna (till May 2025) to now CJI B.R. Gavai, while the case remains exactly where it was. Media reports show that the first listed hearing date was shifted to 15 April 2025; since then, no update on the hearing or any subsequent proceedings is available, either in the media or on the Supreme Court (SC) website.
Most recently, headlines have been dominated by the GEAC’s decision to begin field trials for two varieties of GM maize during the current kharif season at Punjab Agricultural University (PAU). This has raised many eyebrows among agriculturists, environmental activists, and intellectual property (IP) enthusiasts alike. This post aims to holistically analyse the direction in which the GM crops regime seems to be heading in India, and where exactly the GEAC stands amidst all this chaos.
The Punjab GM Crop Trials: A Bumpy Start, but Will They Pave the Way for GM Crop Entry into India?
Recently approved by the GEAC, the GM maize trials at PAU aim to study weed-control efficacy in herbicide-tolerant (HT) maize hybrids with the application of Glyphosate-K salt, and the efficacy of insect-protected maize hybrids against targeted lepidopteran pests. However, it hasn’t been an entirely hunky-dory start. The Coalition for a GM-Free India has urged the Punjab government to revoke its No Objection Certificate (NOC) for GM maize field trials, demanding an explanation for allowing trials on herbicide-tolerant maize engineered to resist glyphosate (a herbicide linked to serious health and environmental risks and already banned in Punjab since 2018).
Coalition Co-Convenor Kavitha Kuruganti has also raised concerns regarding PAU’s track record, pointing to alleged violations during trials of HT mustard, where there were reported breaches of safety protocols. She supplements this argument by noting that although the GEAC sought approval from 11 Indian states to conduct GM maize trials, only Punjab granted permission.
Overall, activists fear that allowing GM maize trials could deepen dependence on chemical inputs, further aggravating Punjab’s ongoing environmental and health crises. They argue that technologies such as herbicide tolerance (HT) and Bt traits tend to promote chemical-intensive farming, which may heighten risks for farmers, food consumers, and biodiversity.
Reflections on the Existing Regime: Where Do We Go from Here?
The use of biotechnology to improve food crops is a key focus of the government’s BioE3 policy. However, India’s bio-economy data shows that bio-agriculture accounts for only 8.1% (the smallest share) of the $165.7 billion bio-economy in the country. Out of a total of 33 genetically modified (GM) crops that have been approved internationally across various countries, only Bt Cotton is commercially approved in India, while several other crops (such as brinjal, tomato, maize, and chickpea) remain in various stages of field trials.
Moreover, even for that singular approved crop, broad acceptance of genetically modified crops continues to be elusive. For instance, in 2023, it was seen that three states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Telangana) deferred a proposal approved by the GEAC to test a new kind of transgenic cotton seed containing a ‘Cry2Ai’ gene, which purportedly makes cotton resistant to pink bollworm.
The GEAC claims that these trials are solely for research purposes and that any commercialisation will be subject to the discretion of the Central Government. They argue that every seed variety begins to face pest challenges after a few years, and developing new resistant varieties is therefore a scientific necessity. While their intentions may be in the right place, the role of the GEAC has come into question more than once with regard to their approvals and rejections of GM crops, such as in 2010 with Bt Brinjal and in 2017 with GM Mustard.
GM mustard, developed using public funds, was the first transgenic food crop to be approved for field use by farmers in India. After a hiatus of over a decade, the GEAC approved the environmental release of mustard hybrid DMH-11 and its parental lines during its 147th meeting on 18 October 2022, for seed production and testing. Yet even these trials have been questioned for their accuracy and diligence, placing GM mustard on hold once again. GEAC has not exactly been consistent in producing reliable studies over the past decade.
Another interesting aspect here is the clear direction given by the SC in its split decision. The SC had mandated the Central Government to formulate a national policy for GM crops, involving all relevant stakeholders and ensuring wide publicity. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) was then required to finalise this policy within four months, incorporating input from state governments and subsequently framing rules. However, nothing concrete has emerged so far. This brings into question the role of the GEAC in the midst of such policy ambiguity.
The GEAC decision granting approval for the maize trials contains several safeguards, outlined under Agenda Item No. 4 of the 155th meeting of the GEAC held on 9 June 2025. The go-ahead came only after formal consent was obtained from the Punjab state government in June 2025, following a proposal by Bayer Crop Science Limited. While the listed conditions are quite detailed, it is worth asking how these to-this safeguards have been tailored, given the continued silence on the policy drafting front. It is certainly concerning that India still lacks statutory guidelines or protocols to assess HT crops, and the biosafety dossier has not been made public.
Moreover, the SC had directed the GEAC and the Central Government to take into account the 2012 report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC), which had been constituted by the Court itself. The TEC report recommended a ban on HT crops and their trials in India for health, environmental, and economic reasons. Sufficient consideration of that aspect appears to be lacking in the current scenario.
While this may not seem like a purely intellectual property issue at first glance, it is deeply rooted in regulatory frameworks that often overlap with IP, particularly when one recalls Monsanto’s history in India. The royalty disputes over Monsanto’s GM cotton technology highlight deeper concerns about monopolistic control by global agribusinesses.
But the conversation doesn’t stop with corporate pressure on farmers. There appears to be a larger context developing, possibly linked to ongoing trade negotiations between India and the United States. One key sticking point is the US push to open Indian markets to GM animal feed, particularly soyameal and distillers’ dried grains with solubles (DDGS). At present, India prohibits GM feed imports in order to preserve its GM-free status and maintain market access to regions like the European Union, which have stringent restrictions on GM products.
Experts have warned that even permitting imports labelled as “non-GM” on the basis of self-certification would be risky. The US does not mandate the separation of GM and non-GM crops at the farm level, which makes any meaningful enforcement nearly impossible. The implications go beyond trade since allowing GM soy or corn for animal feed could become an indirect entry point for multinational corporations into Indian agriculture. The concerns, if this happens, are two fold: Firstlythe underlying fear is that GM crops could bind a majority of India’s smallholder farmers (who make up about 85% of the agricultural sector) to patented technologies, eroding age-old systems of seed preservation and exchange, protected under India’s of their kind law, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001and also concentrate decision-making power in the hands of corporations rather than cultivators. SecondlyIndia’s agri-exports to the United States stood at $3.46 billion in 2023–24, and India’s imports from the US during the same period were significantly lower, at $1.5 billion. However, if GM products are allowed to enter quietly through regulatory backdoors, the long-term consequences could go far beyond trade deficits. They may affect India’s autonomy over its food systems and seed resources.
Clearly, there is much to consider and understand in the dynamics of GM crops before moving towards wider approvals!