The Supreme Court set aside the decision on the registration of the herbicide Halosulfuran Methyl

Justices M. M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the verdict on October 15 following an appeal by Crystal Crop Protection Ltd (CCPL) from Delhi. The Registration Committee had granted this company permission to import and manufacture the herbicide Halosulfuran Methyl in July 2021.

The product Halosulfuran Methyl is applied for the control of such weeds as nutgrass, purple nutsedge, and other grass and broad-leaved weeds. It is used on such crops as sugarcane, maize, rice, bottle gourd, turf, and ornamental landscapes. The company obtained registration after verification by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and the study of data on chemistry, bio-efficacy, toxicology, and packaging.

CCPL's competitor, Dhanuka Agritech Ltd, challenged the issuance of the registration before the Appellate Authority under Sections 10 and 11 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, but its appeal was dismissed. Following this, Dhanuka Agritech turned to the Delhi High Court. A single judge upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority, but later a division bench annulled the registration issued to CCPL. This prompted the Delhi-based company to approach the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, it was noted that a sample of CCPL's product had passed testing at the Central Insecticides Laboratory and showed the claimed purity of 98.53 percent. The Registration Committee also reviewed the issues of source verification at several meetings and accepted the applicant's explanations, considering the mandatory source verification completed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had exceeded the limits of judicial review by essentially acting as an appellate authority. The court emphasized that judicial oversight of executive and technical decisions is limited, especially when it concerns the issuance of a regulatory license following expert evaluation. Furthermore, the court pointed out that Section 10 of the Insecticides Act provides for appealing decisions on the refusal of registration or its cancellation, rather than challenging the issuance of a registration to another person, and therefore a competitor cannot be considered a person entitled to such an appeal.

The justices noted that courts should generally defer to the findings of an expert body if it has conducted a detailed study, including tests, source verification, toxicological and bio-efficacy assessment, unless these findings are found to be arbitrary or illegal.