Stage set for biopiracy case as SC restores 2012 case Chiranjeevi Kulkarni https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/stage-set-for-biopiracy-case-as-sc-restores-2012-case-1169385.html The petition questioned Section 40 of the Biodiversity Act which was invoked by the Union government to remove protection for 190 plants. Leo S says" “Of the 15 plants that were endangered, two have reached close to extinction during the pendency of this case. Meanwhile, the Central government has removed protection for more plants with the number reaching 421 in 2017. There is a need for a nationwide auditing of bio resources to understand the damage caused by such laxity,” Leo Saldanha of the ESG said.
Note by ESG: Biopiracy: Supreme Court restores ESG PIL exposing regulatory failures causing biopiracy and biodiversity losses -
In 2012, ESG filed a PIL< http://esgindia.org/sites/default/files/campaigns/press/esg-pil-biopiracy-hc-kar-oct-2012-final-.pdf > The major major contention was that M/s Monsanto / M/s Mahyco, along with various Indian public universities, had illegally accessed 16 local indigenous varieties of brinjal (eggplant) and turned them into
proprietary B.t. Brinjal (India’s first GMO). Following nationwide public hearings, on 9th February, 2010 the then Environment Minister Mr. Jairam
Ramesh, ordered a moratorium < https://www.cseindia.org/minister-s-report-on-decision-regarding-bt-brinjal-09-feb-2010-7604 >. However, this decision
sidestepped a major concern that ESG had raised: that M/s Monsanto et al had committed biopiracy by illegally accessing India’s sovereign bioresources.
In the 37th Report < https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/63724/1/15_Agriculture_37.pdf >
of Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture August 2012, NBA, MoEF and also the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee
were unequivocally criticised (at pages 279-282 of the report) for their continued inaction in tackling possible biopiracy by M/s Monsanto/M/s
Mahyco.
the Karnataka High Court in a PIL in October 2012 (WP 41532/2012). The PIL also raised another serious concern: that Sec. 40 of the BD Act was so worded that it allowed unfettered and unregulated access to India’s sovereign bioresources for commercial exploitation, and entirely exempted listed bioresources from the protection of the act,
Meanwhile, wary of judicial action due to failure to act on ESG’s biopiracy complaint, NBA filed formal criminal charges in court against Monsanto et al. before the JMFC Court, Dharwad in Criminal Complaint No. 579/2012.
However, in a surprising decision of 2nd December 2013, the Principal Bench of the Karnataka High Court, transferred the PIL to the National Green Tribunal overlooking arguments advanced by ESG that Tribunals do not have the power to decide constitutional validity of a statutory provision that is challenged. ESG filed an appeal in March 2014 before the Supreme Court.
on 22nd November, 2022 - ruled in favour of ESG < https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/18231/18231_2017_12_22_39925_Order_22-Nov-2022.pdf >.
This decision now restores ESG’s PIL in the Karnataka High Court
the Ministry has over the past few years worked to systematically dilute this law and other environmental laws as well
< https://esgindia.org/new/advocacy/national-consultation-on-proposed-amendments-to-environmental-laws-in-india/ >.
< https://esgindia.org/new/events/media/press-release/supreme-court-restores-pil-highlighting-regulatory-failures-causing-biopiracy-and-biodiversity-losses/ >