Central Information Commission
Mr. Gaurav Nagar vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 4 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/WB/C/2008/00261-AD
Dated 4th June, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Nagar
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Environment & Forests
Background
1. The Applicant herein filed a Complaint invoking provisions under Section 18 (1)
(f) of the RTI Act 2005 against the Ministry of Environment & Forest [hereinafter referred to as "MOE&F"]. The Appellant by this complaint petition has challenged the validity and legality of the notification dated No. S.O. 1519 (E), August 23, 2007 issued by the MOE&F published in the Gazette of India on September 11, 2007. It is alleged that the said notification would have potential adverse impact on public health and has also been issued in a non transparent and secret manner being violative of public interest and well being.
2. The Applicant contends that the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sections 6,8 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. It has been alleged that whereas the Rules have been framed with a view to protect the nature, health and environment in connection with the application of gene technology and micro-organisms, the Rule 20 of the said Rules provides extensive exemption which is likely to have widespread adverse impact on the environment at large. Furthermore the MOE&F issued a notification No. S.O. 1519 (E) on August 23, 2007 granting exemption to occupier/s handling a particular micro-organism/genetically engineered organism from the purview of the prohibitory provisions of the Rules, in exercise of its powers under Rule 20 of the same Rules viz. Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells Rules, 1989. Thus it is stated by the Applicant that although the Rules were laid down to protect environment from harmful effects of application of gene technology and micro organisms and specify prohibition/regulation with respect to hazardous substances, with effect from September 11, 2007 by virtue of the MOE&F notification dated 23.08.2007, a blanket cover of exemption have been provided to "processed food items derived from Living Modified Organisms" from the application of the prohibitive provisions of Rule 7 to 11.
3. The Applicant in his submissions has contended that the notification exempts the importing agencies from seeking permission of the regulatory bodies, resulting in unrestricted entry to untested foods of dubious origins. Consequently, in the absence of responsibility on the occupier, processed food containing GEOs would be imported, sold and used without any prohibition or restriction. The Appellant in his submissions further submits that in the present scenario, the ill effects of uncontrolled and unregulated use of the Genetically Engineered foods on human health and environment are becoming increasingly evident and the Appellant has placed reliance on the CIC decision being CIC/WBA/2006/00548 dated 07.05.2007 dealing with similar issue.
4. The Applicant in the complaint has also expressed his concern about the labeling of GE Foods which shall become discretionary due to the exemption provided under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules rendering the erstwhile practice of mandatory labeling of food stuff derived from GEOs ineffective. Such exemption from the mandatory practices compromises on public interest and is directly violative of the Consumer Protection Act denying the consumers right of informed choice. This position is also contradictory with the compulsory labeling at the Codex Alimentarius. The aforementioned reasons indicate reasons as to why the notification No. S.O. 1519 (E)dated August 23, 2007 issued by MoE&F would have potential adverse impact on public health at large and being issued in a non transparent and secret manner, violates public interest and well being.
5. The Applicant in his complaint thus sought two-fold relief while approaching the CIC. Firstly the Applicant sought an inquiry as to why the MoE&F violated Section 4(1) (c) and (d) of the RTI Act 2005 and secondly, direction from the Commission to require the MoE&F to make public all files, file notings, documents, records, deliberations and reasons for issuance of the notification No. S.O. 1519 (E) dated 23.08.2007.
6. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for June 4th, 2009 and a communication dated 25.05.2009 was accordingly sent to the parties intimating the date of hearing of the appeal.
7. Dr. Ranjini Warrier, Director/CPIO; Ms. Madhu Gupta, RO & M. Jena, SO were present from the Public Authority.
8. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
9. The Respondent Public Authority submitted a detailed written submission on the date of hearing. The basic points thereof are as follows:
i) Complainant had not filed any request for information with the concerned CPIO for obtaining the requisite information in terms of provisions laid down in the Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.
ii) The decision regarding the amendment of Rule 11 to exclude GM processed food from the purview of GEAC was taken by the Ministry on the premise that only Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) not processed food, have the property to propagate and pose threat to the environment, hence the Task Force on recombinant pharma under Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, former DG, CSIR constituted by the Ministry and the Task Force on Agriculture Biotechnology under Prof. M.S. Swaminathan have recommended that as per MoE&F's mandate the GEAC should be involved only in the regulation of LMOs to avoid regulatory overlaps.
iii) The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 being a special provision for dealing with GM food and food products has been notified by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in order to regulate and address the health concerns/risks in line with the Codex guidelines. The MoH&FW are in the process of operationalising the Food Safety and Standards Authority, while processed food is exempted from provisions of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol to which India is a signatory.
iv) A notification was issued by the MoH&FW vide communication dated 26.12.2007 informing that they have already published a draft notification on the comprehensive labeling of GM food to be shortly finalized by the Food Safety and Standard Authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
v)The Gene Campaign, where the Complainant is employed, had already challenged the Notification No. S.O. 1519 (E) dated 23.08.2007 by filing a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is posted for hearing on the 5th October 2009. The matter was heard on 20.03.2009 and a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India, which is already available with the complainant's employer viz. Gene Campaign.
v) In so far as the compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act 2005 is concerned, the Respondent Public Authority has submitted that the provisions of the Act have been always duly complied with, as is evident from the vibrant, transparent and updated website of the Ministry. Even the policy documents, relating to the amendment of the Rule 11, formulated through a consultative approach has been posted on the MoE&F website before finalizing the same. Information pertaining to biosafety regulation including gazette notifications, policy documents, decisions documents, agenda for the GEAC meetings, biosafety guidelines, recommendations of Committees etc are posted on MoE&F and DBT websites viz. http://www.envfor.nic.in and http://www.igmoris.nic.in respectively.
vi) The Respondent also stated that as a result of the filing of the Writ petition, the Notification No. S.O. 1519(E) dated 23 August, 2007 was first kept in abeyance for a period of six months ie. upto 30th September, 2008 or until issue of further notification by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding regulation of GM processed foods by the Food Safety Standards Authority, whichever is earlier and later, in view of the request from the MOH&FW the date has been extended upto 30 September, 2009.
10. In view of the aforementioned submissions, and on a perusal of all the available records of the case, the Commission noted that the Appellant's grievance with regard to the notification No. S.O. 1519(E) dated 23 August, 2007 has already been redressed and accordingly hereby directs that the Respondent Public Authority take steps to further upgrade its website and also further comply with the provisions of Section 4 (1) (c) & (d) of the RTI Act 2005, if not already done, including making public all records, deliberations and reasons for issuing the abovementioned notification. Compliance report in this regard to be submitted before the CIC within two months of receipt of this order. Furthermore, the Respondent Public Authority may also allow the Appellant, if the Appellant wishes to, to inspect all the files, file notings, records, etc. instrumental in the issuance of the notification No. S.O. 1519 (E) dated 23.08.2007, in response to his request to make public all these documents. The inspection shall be done on a date and time as per the mutual convenience of both the parties, and completed before end June, 2009.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Sh. Guarav Nagar Gene Campaign J-235/A, Lane W-15C, Sainik Frams, New Delhi 110 062
2. PIO Ministry of Environment & Forests Paryavaran Bhawan CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi
3. AIGF & CPIO Ministry of Environment & Forests Paryavaran Bhawan Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC