Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan questioned the interest and motive behind the petitions —filed by NGO Gene Campaign and activist Aruna Rodrigues — and sought to know, “how such petitions are filed, we don’t understand.”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Rodrigues, raised his hands in despair, moved aside and refused to argue before the Bench. After an apology from Bhushan, the Bench while accepting it asked the advocate to “not to throw tantrum like this. You must answer every query posed by the Bench.” It finally took into consideration some of the fears raised by the petitioners.

Agreeing with the submission of Additional Solicitor General B Dutta, who felt the court should stay away from these technical matters, the Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal, said, “We can’t run the GEAC”.

The petitioners had alleged that the GEAC, Government’s apex regulatory body, was not properly constituted and in the absence of proper safety guidelines, allowing open field trials for the transgenic seeds may lead to contamination of related species. They had also claimed the co-chairman of the panel had conflicting interest as he was on the board of an NGO funded by an MNC involved in the business.

The Bench cautioned Bhushan from making “wholesale” allegations and getting suspicious against the panel members. “The GEAC is a broad-based organisation with so many scientists,” it said, referring to the 29-member expert body.

In previous instances too, in the course of the court hearing, the court had refused to take upon itself a closer scrutiny of the workings of the GEAC.

On Wednesday, asking the Environment Ministry to consider inclusion of scientists Swaminathan and Bhargava as “special invitees” at the time of considering applications, the apex court said, “If such persons will be there, there will be transparency. Let them be invited to watch the proceedings.”

The petitioner cited a report that Russia has refused to import GM food from India. Unfazed by his submission, the Bench remarked, “Russia, US and Canada have land mass more than our country where millions are suffering due to poverty. We cannot allow millions of us to die of poverty.”

The court ensured that it is for the GEAC to examine the applications for approval with the condition that it would accept suggestions of the petitioners. As suggested by advocate Sanjay Parikh, the Bench also ordered that guidelines followed by it while granting permissions should be “disclosed”.

The Bench was firm on refusing to vet any decision taken by GEAC, as it maintained, “THe GEAC will examine. It is an expert body. We do not have knowledge about the issue. It is not possible for us to give direction as sought by you to GEAC.”