The Hans India: Mumbai: Tuesday,
September 13, 2016.
Information
regarding genetically modified (GM) mustard shall be shared with consumers.
Kavita Kuruganti sought for the agenda and minutes of Genetic Engineering
Appraisal Committee (GEAC). CIC directed it to disclose. She approached the CIC
against non-implementation of direction of disclosure, saying that the
directions of CIC were not complied with, more than 50 days later. The regulators
are just dilly-dallying.
Their website
shows that they do not do this. Despite assurances in the CIC hearing and CIC
Orders, their website clearly shows that the latest meeting agenda of June 20
was not put up nor were full minutes of other meetings. In the case of
bio-safety data being sought, the resolution of the issue with the crop
developer should have been over by now and all data should have been shared in
the public domain.
The matter is
of great urgency since more and more evidence is emerging of the regulators’
failures and by not sharing all data, they are concealing their failures from
citizens. Kavitha contended that the Bt Brinjal dossier came out on the
regulators’ website only after the Supreme Court order.
In the case
of GM Mustard, regulatory opaqueness is apparent from the fact that even
minutes of the meeting in which the decision to approve BRL II trials took
place are not being shared pro-actively. There are both Supreme Court and CIC
2009 Orders which have already adjudicated on this matter.
The CIC in
2009 concluded conclusively that this is a matter of overriding public
interest, and also settled the issue of third party confidential information at
that time itself. It asked for all existing data to be shared before any
massive trial.
Scientists
from the Ministry of Environment contended that they would give entire
information after clinical trials proved correct to avoid disclosure of
piecemeal information; that part disclosure would not give holistic view of
experiment; that the patent right is in favour of inventor; that they gave
‘gist of minutes’ of the meeting of Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee
(GEAC)
The CIC
analysed both the contentions and concluded: “The public authority should understand
that the information sought by appellant is supposed to be disclosed on their
own as per the mandate under Section 4. The decision-making process should be
told, along with information about whether such process is adopted, minutes of
the meetings, results of clinical trial, and entire information about GM
Mustard etc.
This is in
public interest. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety requires that countries
are informed and agree in advance to imports of GE crops. This is called the
Advance Informed Agreement (AIA). Before countries are allowed to export any
genetically engineered organisms destined for intentional introduction into the
environment, they must first obtain the importing country's explicit consent.
Article 1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety explains the objective as
follows:
In accordance
with the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15 of the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Protocol is
to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the
safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from
modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to
human health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements.”
The CIC
directed disclosure of all bio-safety data pertaining to all other GMOs in
pipeline as that is part of voluntary disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act
before 30th April 2016. They sought
extension of time to comply with orders, which was given. P Saranya, CPIO, and
Madhumita Biswas sought another extension without putting forward any
substantive reason. They failed to offer any specific time for furnishing the
same.
They are
holding and controlling the copy of report, resolution, agenda and
minutes. Their plea that they are
awaiting final decision is not tenable as that is against the RTI Act and
public interest. On 4th August, they
were asking for 90 days from 30 the June 2016 (including two months extension),
i.e., they have already exhausted half time, but are not willing to give
information sought.
Request for
extension of time is commitment to give information within 2 months extended
period, which they breached. There
appears to be no seriousness in seeking extension. They are routinely asking
for extension without specifying the period. They were asking two or three,
four months. The Commission viewed that such tactics are only to delay but not
serious requirement for giving.
By this, they
will only harm the public interest and facilitate to promote some interest, not
desirable. There is no sufficient
reasoning or explanation regarding this request for extension. The Commission
found no sufficient reason to extend the time of 90 days to give information
which they are supposed to disclose on their own under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI
Act.
The
information sought is of great public importance, concerning the public health.
The Commission directed the public authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, to proactively publish information related to bio-safety
data regarding transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-1 as well as agenda of meeting of
Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee and the minutes of meetings, which they
are under statutory obligation to give. The resolution of bio-safety with the
crop developer has also been final; it should have been in public domain.
Public
authority is attempting to keep vital information out of public discussion. It
amounts to prevention of Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression of the appellant, who is interested in discussing the pros and cons
of GMO-related issues of GM Mustard, which if permitted would cause serious
impact on the public health of consumers on large-scale.
Blocking
public discussion
Justice
Holmes (Abrams v US, 250 US 616 (1919)) characterised the discussion of public
matters as essential to see that "the ultimate good desired is better
reached by a free trade in ideas.” One of the fathers of the American
Constitution, James Madison, (1751-1836) said: "Nothing could be more
irrational than to give the people power, and to withhold from them information
without which power is abused.
A people who
mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with power which knowledge
gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring
it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both."
Any attempt
by public authority to postpone or delay the disclosure will block the public
discussion. As the authority failed to
disclose, generating this complaint against non-compliance, the Commission held
that the PIO, and deemed PIO Scientist, responsible for not facilitating the
disclosure as ordered and undertaken.
They were
directed under proviso to Section 20 to show cause why maximum penalty should
not be imposed against each of them for non-compliance of Section 4(1(b) even
after such information was rightly sought and directed to be provided under
Section 3 and 6 of RTI Act as not hit by Section 8(1).
Though
Section 4(1)(b) is as such not enforceable, the Commission has every authority
to enforce the RTI of appellant, which was violated by these two officers, by
not complying with the orders of CIC, and also breached their own undertaking
to give the information within two months.
The Ministry filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court to stay this
order.
.JPG)
.JPG)
