What is the Right to Repair Portal?

The Right to Repair Portal was launched by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution on National Consumer Rights Day (24th December) in 2022. It is designed to provide consumers with easy access to information regarding the repair and maintenance of various products, promoting sustainability and consumer rights.

Purpose and Objectives

• Combat Planned Obsolescence: Address issues related to products being designed with limited lifespans to force consumers to purchase new ones.
• Monopolization of Repair Services: Break the dominance of manufacturers over repair services, allowing consumers more freedom in choosing repair options.
• Promote Sustainability: Encourage the repair and reuse of products rather than discarding them, aligning with the principles of the circular economy.

Sectors Covered

• Farming Equipment
• Mobile and Electronics
• Consumer Durables
• Automobile Equipment

Features of the Portal

• Focus on Repairs:
• Circular Economy: Promotes the concept of 5R (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle), encouraging repair and reuse of products.
• Single Platform for Information:
• Offers centralized access to product information, including warranty and post-sales service details across different sectors.
• Multiple Repair Options:
• Manufacturers are required to share product details, enabling consumers to choose between self-repair, third-party repair services, or manufacturer repairs.
• Consumer Care Details:
• Provides a consolidated list of consumer care contact details for major product manufacturers.
• Post-Onboarding Experiences:
• Companies like TVS and TATA Motors have shared repair videos and experiences on the portal, based on feedback from the National Consumer Helpline.

Benefits of the Portal

• Harmonize Trade & Boost Local Economy:
• Facilitates trade between OEMs, third-party buyers, and sellers.
• Helps create new job opportunities within the repair and maintenance sectors.
• Reduce e-Waste & Save Money:
• Aims to decrease the volume of e-waste by extending the lifespan of products and improving their recyclability.
• Provides cost-effective repair solutions, potentially saving consumers money.
• Allow Simple Repair Solution with Access to Multiple Services:
• Offers a practical approach to repairing products by providing access to various repair services and replacement parts.
• Enhances consumer convenience by offering multiple repair options and clear product information.

Relation to Broader Initiatives

• Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment): The portal aligns with the Mission LiFE initiative launched at the Glasgow Summit of COP 26, which focuses on sustainable living and environmental protection.
• Consumer Rights and Sustainability: By facilitating repairs and promoting the circular economy, the portal supports broader goals of consumer rights and environmental sustainability.

The Right to Repair Portal is an important step toward empowering consumers, reducing waste, and fostering a more sustainable and equitable approach to product maintenance and repair.

Defamation Case Against Wikipedia: Overview and Legal Context

Background of the Case

Asian News International (ANI), a news agency in India, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia and its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The case seeks damages of approximately Rs. 2 crores. ANI alleges that Wikipedia published defamatory content on its page and then actively reversed edits made to reflect ANI’s true position.

Allegations Against Wikipedia

• Defamatory Content: ANI claims that Wikipedia's page on the organization accused it of having "pro-government bias," distributing misinformation, and acting as a propaganda tool for the central government. The page allegedly stated that ANI was involved in misreporting events and spreading content from fake news websites.
• Reversed Edits: ANI argues that Wikipedia officials reversed edits made to correct these allegations, thus perpetuating the defamatory content.

Legal Grounds for the Case

• Information Technology Act, 2000:
• Definition of Intermediaries (Section 2(1)(w)):
• The IT Act defines intermediaries as entities that receive, store, or transmit electronic records on behalf of others. This includes telecom service providers, ISPs, web hosting services, and more.
• ANI argues that Wikipedia qualifies as a significant social media intermediary (SSMI) under this definition, as it has a substantial user base.
• Safe Harbour Clause (Section 79):
• Section 79(1): Provides intermediaries with exemption from liability for third-party information, data, or communication hosted on their platform if they meet certain conditions.
• Non-Involvement (Section 79(2)): Intermediaries must not initiate, select, or modify information.
• Compliance (Section 79(3)): Intermediaries must adhere to due diligence requirements as per the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code of 2021.
• Non-Applicability of Safe Harbour (Section 79(3)):
• Exemption does not apply if the intermediary conspires, abets, aids, or induces an unlawful act.
• If informed by the government or its agencies, the intermediary must promptly remove or disable access to the offending material.
• Loss of Safe Harbour:
• Under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021, failure to comply with due diligence requirements results in the loss of safe harbour protection, exposing the intermediary to legal liability.

Key Points of the Case

• SSMI Status: ANI argues that Wikipedia qualifies as an SSMI because it has a significant user base in India. The status of SSMIs is specifically outlined in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• Safe Harbour Protection: Wikipedia’s defense may rely on Section 79 of the IT Act, claiming that it should be protected from liability under the safe harbour provisions. However, ANI contends that Wikipedia’s actions—publishing and retaining defamatory content despite being notified—might negate this protection.
• Potential Implications: This case could set a precedent for how intermediary platforms handle defamatory content and their responsibilities in removing or addressing such content. It may also influence how courts interpret intermediary liability and safe harbour protections.

Similar Judgements and Relevant Legal Framework Involving Wikipedia

1. Petition by Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organization of India

• Case Summary: Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organization of India filed a petition claiming that content on Wikipedia about them was defamatory. The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to edit the Wikipedia page to correct the information and suggested exploring other legal remedies.
• Implications: This case affirmed the right of entities to seek corrections on Wikipedia if the content is defamatory. It highlights that Wikipedia entries, while user-generated, are subject to legal scrutiny and correction if proven harmful.

2. Hewlett Packard India Sales vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2023

• Case Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that Wikipedia, as a crowd-sourced platform, may not be reliable for resolving legal disputes due to its user-generated and potentially misleading information. The court advised against using such sources in legal contexts.
• Implications: This judgement underscores the importance of using verified and authoritative sources over crowd-sourced platforms like Wikipedia for legal and official matters. It also highlights the limitations of Wikipedia’s content reliability in formal legal processes.

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Key Provisions

• Due Diligence by Intermediaries
• Publication of Rules: Intermediaries must publish their rules, privacy policies, and user agreements prominently on their platforms.
• Prohibition on Unlawful Content: They must not host or publish content that violates laws related to sovereignty, public order, decency, morality, defamation, etc.
• Data Retention: Intermediaries must not retain user information beyond 180 days after registration withdrawal.
• Cybersecurity Reporting: They must report cybersecurity incidents to CERT-in.
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM)
• Grievance Officer: Intermediaries must provide contact details for a Grievance Officer and mechanisms for users to file complaints.
• Resolution Timeline: Complaints must be acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
• Appeal to Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC): Aggrieved users can appeal decisions within 30 days. The GAC must resolve appeals within 30 days through a digital process.
• Additional Due Diligence for Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs)
• Chief Compliance Officer (CCO): SSMIs must appoint a CCO to ensure compliance.
• Nodal Contact Person: For 24x7 coordination with law enforcement.
• Resident Grievance Officer: Responsible for periodic compliance reports and identifying the first originator of information.
• First Originator Identification: Messaging services must identify the first originator of information within India.
• Digital Media Publishers
• Self-Regulation and Oversight: Online publishers must follow a three-tier structure of self-regulation and oversight by the central government.
• Code of Ethics: Publishers must adhere to codes of conduct, including content classification and age restrictions for online content.
• Verification of Online Real Money Games
• Self-Regulatory Bodies: The Ministry may designate bodies to verify permissible online real money games.
• Ensuring Online Safety and Dignity
• Content Removal: Intermediaries must remove or disable access to content that violates privacy or dignity within 24 hours.
• Oversight Mechanism
• Charter for Self-Regulation: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will issue guidelines and have the authority to block content on an emergency basis.

 What is a Caste Census?

• Definition: A Caste Census involves the collection and tabulation of caste-based data within the broader census exercise. It aims to provide detailed statistics on the population segmented by caste, which is crucial for addressing issues of discrimination and for informed policymaking.
• Current Practice: The Indian Census, conducted every ten years by the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner (under the Ministry of Home Affairs), collects data on demographics, culture, economic structure, and more. Traditionally, this has included a variety of socio-economic data, but caste-wise enumeration beyond Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) has not been included in recent censuses.

Historical Background

• Colonial Era: The British colonial administration first introduced caste census in 1881, which continued until 1931. The 1931 Census recorded 4,147 castes in India, in addition to the depressed classes or untouchables.
• Post-Independence: After India gained independence, the government discontinued full caste enumeration. The concern was that such detailed data might entrench caste divisions and perpetuate the caste system. Since the 1951 Census, only the caste data for SCs and STs has been officially recorded and published, alongside information on religions, languages, and socio-economic status.
• 2011 Census: Caste data was collected in the 2011 Census but was not released publicly. The Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 faced criticism for issues related to data accuracy and underreporting.

 Importance of Caste Data

• Policy and Quota Implementation: Caste data is used to inform policy decisions and to manage reservation quotas. For instance, the Mandal Commission Report of 1979, which led to the reservation of 27% of government jobs and educational seats for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), was based on data from the 1931 Census. This data helped estimate the population of OBCs and justify reservations under Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution.
• Historical Basis: The Mandal Commission used the 1931 Census data to determine that OBCs constituted about 52% of the population, which supported its recommendations for reservations.

 Current Status and Debate

• Government Policy: As of 2021, the Government of India has stated that it does not plan to enumerate caste-wise population data beyond SCs and STs in the Census. This policy reflects ongoing concerns about reinforcing caste divisions.
• Future Considerations: The debate continues regarding the need for updated caste data to better address social inequalities and to ensure effective implementation of affirmative action policies.

Constitutional and Legal Backing for Census in India

 Constitutional Provisions

• Union List (Seventh Schedule, Entry 69): The population census is enumerated as a subject under the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This means that the responsibility for conducting the Census is exclusively a Union (central) government function.
• Article 340: This Article mandates the appointment of a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. Although it does not specifically mandate a caste census, it supports the need for detailed investigation into the conditions of these classes, which can be facilitated by such data.

Legislative Framework

• Census Act, 1948: The Census Act provides the legal framework for conducting the Census in India. It outlines the procedures for the collection, compilation, and publication of census data, ensuring that the process is carried out systematically and legally.
• Collection of Statistics Act, 2008: This Act permits states and local bodies to collect necessary data, even though census data collection is a Union responsibility. This provision has enabled states to conduct their own caste censuses or related surveys, as seen in Karnataka (2015) and Bihar (2023). The Act provides a framework for states to gather and use statistical data, supplementing the Union Census data when needed.

Examples of State-Level Caste Censuses

• Karnataka (2015): Karnataka conducted its own caste census to gather detailed data on the socio-economic status of various castes within the state. This was an attempt to understand and address local issues more effectively.
• Bihar (2023): Similarly, Bihar conducted a caste census to update and improve its data on different castes, which was used to inform state-level policies and programs.

 The Census in India is a constitutional obligation governed by the Union List of the Seventh Schedule and the Census Act of 1948. Article 340 emphasizes the importance of investigating conditions of backward classes, which indirectly supports the need for comprehensive data, including caste-wise data. The Collection of Statistics Act, 2008, enables states to gather additional data, such as through state-level caste censuses, enhancing the overall understanding of demographic and socio-economic conditions.

Why Is a Caste Census Required?

A caste census is crucial for several reasons, spanning social, administrative, moral, and legal dimensions. Here’s a detailed overview:

 Social Reasons

• Comprehensive Understanding of Diversity: Caste remains a significant social structure in India. A caste census provides a detailed picture of the diverse caste dynamics in society, helping to address social inequalities and understand the true nature of social stratification.
• Low Inter-Caste Marriages: As of 2011-12, only about 5% of marriages in India were inter-caste, indicating entrenched caste boundaries.
• Caste Surnames and Marks: Prevalent caste-based identifiers and residential segregation underscore the persistent role of caste in societal organization.
• Avoiding Wrongful Inclusions/Exclusions: Accurate caste data helps prevent the inclusion of undeserving castes in reserved categories and the exclusion of deserving ones. This is crucial for ensuring that affirmative action reaches the intended beneficiaries.
• Guard Against Dominant Castes: Prevents dominant castes within reserved categories from crowding out other deserving castes.
• Sub-Categorization: Helps in creating sub-categories within reserved groups to ensure fair distribution of benefits.
• Targeted Welfare Schemes: Enables the design of welfare schemes and affirmative action policies based on precise demographic data, ensuring that resources are allocated equitably.
• Income/Wealth Criteria: Determines the income or wealth criteria for identifying the creamy layer within backward classes, ensuring that benefits are targeted at those truly in need.

Administrative Reasons

• Designing Policies: Accurate caste data is essential for designing effective welfare schemes and policies, including reservations in education and employment.
• Equitable Distribution: Helps in distributing resources and opportunities more fairly based on social and economic indicators like education level, employment status, and income.
• Election and Representation: Influences choices for elections and cabinet positions, which can be affected by caste considerations. Accurate data helps in ensuring fair representation and decision-making.

Moral Reasons

• Correcting Inequities: Lack of caste data has allowed elites among upper castes and dominant OBCs to disproportionately control national assets, income, and power.
• Fulfilling Constitutional Mandates: Ensures compliance with constitutional mandates related to social justice, equality, and welfare for all citizens.
• Income Disparities: Addresses issues like the disproportionate distribution of national income, where the richest 1% control 22.6% of national income while the poorest 50% receive only 15%.

Legal Reasons

• Constitutional Policies: Enables effective implementation of constitutionally mandated policies of social justice, such as reservations in education and public employment.
• Supreme Court Rulings: Supports legal claims of backwardness based on caste data, as the Supreme Court has recognized caste as a relevant criterion for defining social and educational backwardness.
• Updating Historical Data: Corrects and updates historical data on caste demographics, which may have evolved over time, ensuring that policies reflect current realities.

Opposition to Caste Census

 Reasons for Opposition

• Fuels Demand for Increasing Reservation:
• Potential Revelation: A nationwide caste census could reveal that the population share of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is greater than the 52% estimate by the Mandal Commission. This could lead to increased demands for raising the 27% reservation quota currently allocated to OBCs, potentially escalating political and social tensions.
• Non-Feasibility:
• Complex Classification: Including a caste-related question in the census would result in a vast number of caste entries, including various clan, gotra, and sub-caste names. The complexity of tabulating and classifying this data could be challenging, especially given that census enumerators are part-time workers without specialized training in caste classifications.
• Delay Issues: The difficulty in properly categorizing and tabulating this data could lead to significant delays in the release of census results.
• Absence of Constitutional Mandate:
• Lack of Requirement: Unlike the data collection for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), there is no constitutional mandate for including caste data for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or Backward Castes Communities (BCCs) in the census. This makes it a contentious issue without a clear legal obligation.
• Reinforcement of Caste Identities and Social Division:
• Political Manipulation: There are concerns that caste data could be exploited by politicians for electoral gains, leading to increased caste-based and vote-bank politics, and reinforcing social divisions rather than fostering integration and unity.
• Social Impact: The focus on caste might perpetuate existing divisions and lead to further stratification of society.
• Privacy and Stigmatization:
• Potential Harm: Publicly identifying individuals by caste could exacerbate stigma and discrimination, particularly against lower or marginalized castes. This could conflict with the principle of treating all citizens equally, regardless of their social background.

 Previous Attempts at Conducting Caste Census

• 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC):
• Parliamentary Resolution: In 2010, a unanimous resolution was passed by Parliament to include caste enumeration in the 2011 Census.
• Conduct Issues: The SECC-2011 faced several issues:
• Legal Framework: It was not conducted under the Census Act, 1948, as no amendment was made to include caste enumeration.
• Implementation: The census was conducted by the Union Ministries of Rural Development and Urban Development, which lacked experience in sociological and anthropological surveys.
• Questionnaire Design: The questionnaire was poorly designed with open-ended questions about caste, leading to confusion among enumerators.
• Data Classification: Enumerators struggled to distinguish between genuine castes, alternative caste names, larger caste groups, sub-castes, surnames, and clan names.

 Way Forward

• Amend Census Act 1948:
• Mandatory Enumeration: Amend the Census Act to make caste enumeration a mandatory part of the census. This would ensure that caste data is collected systematically and legally.
• Integration with Socio-Economic Surveys:
• Comprehensive Database: Integrate caste data collection with broader socio-economic surveys to create a comprehensive database addressing multiple dimensions of social and economic inequality.
• Utilize Existing Data Sources:
• Alternative Data: Consider that existing surveys, such as the National Sample Survey (NSS) and previous SECC data, might provide sufficient information for policymaking without requiring a full caste census.
• Improve Data Collection Methods:
• Census Commissioner Responsibility: Collect caste data as part of the regular Census by the Census Commissioner, incorporating specific questions about sub-castes, caste names, and surnames.
• Expert Consultation: Involve sociological and anthropological experts to develop a draft list of castes specific to each state and consult the public before finalizing the list for enumerators.

Why in the News? The Supreme Court recently delivered a split verdict on the validity of the Union Government's decision to approve the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) mustard crops in 2022.

Details of the Split Verdict:

• Judge 1: Found the approval by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in 2022 to be "vitiated" (defective) and contrary to the principle of public interest. This judge highlighted that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had not conducted any health impact studies on GM mustard.
• Judge 2: Held that the approval was valid but issued directives for stricter monitoring by the Union Government. This judge also mandated that the Union Government should evolve a national policy on GM crops in consultation with all stakeholders, including states, farmers, and other relevant groups.

What is Genetic Modification?

• Definition: Genetic modification involves altering an organism's DNA by either changing an existing section of DNA or introducing a new gene altogether.
• Process: In plants, genetic modification involves inserting a foreign gene (transgene) into the plant’s own genetic material. This gene could be introduced from another plant, an animal, or a microorganism.

About GM Mustard Crop (DMH-11):

• Development: DMH-11 is developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (Delhi University) and represents a significant step toward the commercialization of India’s first GM food crop.
• Current Status: GM mustard has not yet been released for commercial cultivation.
• Genetic Background: DMH-11 is produced by crossing two mustard varieties, ‘Varuna’ and East European ‘Early Heera-2’. This crossing process is challenging in conventional breeding because mustard is self-pollinating, meaning its pollen fertilizes the same plant. To overcome this, the barnase and barstar genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens have been introduced to facilitate cross-breeding.

Implications of the Verdict:

• Policy Development: The Supreme Court’s directions for a national policy reflect the need for comprehensive regulation and stakeholder consultation regarding GM crops.
• Health and Safety: Ongoing concerns about health impacts and environmental safety are central to the debate on GM crop approval and commercialization.

Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in India: Current Status and History

1. Bt-Cotton:

• Introduction: Bt-Cotton was the first GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India, starting in 2002.
• Purpose: It was engineered to protect against bollworm infestation, a major pest affecting cotton crops.
• Adoption: By 2018-19, Bt-Cotton constituted 95% of the total cotton planted in India, reflecting its widespread acceptance and use among Indian farmers.
• Impact: The introduction of Bt-Cotton has been credited with increasing cotton yields and reducing the need for chemical insecticides, thereby benefiting both productivity and the environment.

2. Bt-Brinjal:

• Approval and Moratorium: Bt-Brinjal received clearance from the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) for commercial cultivation in 2009. However, it faced strong public opposition and was put under a 10-year moratorium by the Technical Expert Committee (TEC).
• Recent Developments: In response to evolving agricultural needs and ongoing research, GEAC has permitted field trials of two new varieties of Bt-Brinjal—Janak and BSS-793—across eight states between 2020 and 2023. These trials aim to assess the performance and safety of these new varieties before considering broader approval.

Regulatory Framework of GM Crops in India

1. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:

• Overview: Prohibits the import, manufacture, use, or sale of GM food without the approval of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
• Purpose: Ensures that GM foods meet safety standards before they enter the market.

2. Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM):

• Affiliation: Operates under the Department of Biotechnology (DBT).
• Role: Monitors and evaluates research and development projects involving GM organisms. It ensures that research complies with regulatory guidelines and safety measures.

3. State Biotechnology Coordination Committee (SBCC):

• Function: Reviews safety and control measures in institutions handling GMOs. It provides oversight and coordination at the state level.

4. District Level Committee (DLC):

• Responsibilities: Inspects and investigates compliance with regulatory guidelines at the district level. Reports findings to the SBCC or Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).

5. GM Crop Approval Process:

• Procedure: Approval is granted on a case-by-case basis after thorough scientific evaluation of health and environmental safety, following guidelines under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Concerns about GM Crops

1. Human Health:

• Herbicide Use: GM crops often rely on herbicides like glyphosate, which has been classified as a "probable carcinogen" by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015. Concerns about its long-term health effects persist.

2. Biodiversity Loss:

• Herbicide Tolerance: GM crops with herbicide-tolerant traits may affect all vegetation in and around fields where these crops are grown. This could disrupt mixed farming practices and lead to reduced biodiversity.

3. Contamination:

• Gene Flow: There is a risk of gene flow from GM crops to wild and weedy relatives, non-GM crops, and organic farming systems. Instances of transgene escape have been reported, such as in GM canola and wheat in Canada.

4. Impact on Pollinators:

• Herbicide Overuse: Herbicide use can reduce the availability of pollen and nectar for pollinators like honeybees. This can affect biodiversity and ecosystem health, as seen with the decline of monarch butterflies in the USA.

5. Corporate Control:

• Seed Market: High corporate concentration in the seed market can lead to increased prices and reduced choices for farmers, which may impact their economic well-being.

6. Income Loss:

• Price Fluctuations: Instances like the sharp decline in farm-gate prices of Bt Cotton after bumper crops can result in significant income losses for farmers, affecting their financial stability.

Way Forward

1. Research and Development:

• Investment: Increase public investment in R&D to develop new seed varieties that are more resilient and have minimal environmental impact. Focus on sustainability and reduced harm to ecosystems.

2. Regulatory Information Requirements:

• Plant Description: Provide detailed information about the plant’s biology and the nature of its genetic modification.
• Health Assessments: Assess potential allergenicity and toxicity of GM crops.
• Protein Expression: Evaluate the expression of new proteins introduced through genetic modification.

3. Parliamentary Standing Committee Recommendations:

• Field Trials: Conduct field trials in controlled environments and in consultation with agricultural universities to ensure safety and effectiveness.
• GEAC Leadership: Appoint an expert from the field of biotechnology as the head of GEAC to ensure informed decision-making based on scientific data.
• Bt Cotton Evaluation: Undertake comprehensive studies to assess the success and impact of Bt Cotton, including its economic effects on farmers and its environmental implications.

About GEAC

• Established: Under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), the GEAC is the apex body responsible for evaluating and approving the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) organisms and products in India.
• Purpose: Ensures that GM crops and other GM organisms do not pose a threat to the environment or public health before they are released for commercial use.

Functions:

• Approval of GM Crops:
• Evaluation: Assesses the safety and environmental impact of GM crops and organisms based on data provided by developers and other scientific research.
• Recommendations: Provides approvals for field trials, environmental release, and commercial cultivation based on thorough scientific evaluation.
• Regulatory Compliance:
• Monitoring: Ensures compliance with regulatory guidelines and environmental protection standards during the research and development phase of GM crops.
• Inspection: Oversees inspections and investigations to ensure adherence to safety protocols and guidelines.
• Public Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement:
• Consultation: Engages with various stakeholders, including scientists, environmentalists, farmers, and the public, to gather inputs and address concerns related to GM crops.
• Transparency: Strives to maintain transparency in decision-making processes and provides information on approvals and evaluations to the public.

Approval Process:

• Application Submission:
• Developers submit applications for environmental release and commercialization of GM crops, including data on safety, efficacy, and environmental impact.
• Scientific Evaluation:
• Expert Panels: GEAC reviews applications through expert panels that assess the data and provide recommendations.
• Risk Assessment: Conducts risk assessments related to health, environmental impact, and ecological balance.
• Decision-Making:
• Approval: Based on expert recommendations and risk assessments, GEAC grants approval for field trials, environmental release, and commercialization.
• Conditions: May impose specific conditions to mitigate risks and ensure safety.

Key Regulatory Frameworks and Guidelines:

• Environmental Protection Act, 1986: Provides the overarching legal framework for environmental protection, including the regulation of GM organisms.
• Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export, and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (1989): Details the procedures and safety measures for GMOs.

Recent Developments:

• Court Directions: Recent judicial rulings, such as the split verdict on GM mustard, have prompted calls for more stringent guidelines and the evolution of national policies on GM crops.
• Policy Updates: The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to formulate a national policy regarding GM crops in consultation with all stakeholders, including states, farmers, and scientific experts.

Challenges and Criticisms:

• Scientific Scrutiny: Ensuring robust scientific scrutiny and addressing concerns related to the potential health and environmental impacts of GM crops.
• Public Perception: Balancing scientific assessments with public concerns and ensuring transparent communication about GM crop safety.