Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Inspection of Animal Testing Facility Amidst Allegations of Cruelty and Conflicting Reports

Delhi High Court Orders New Probe into Animal Testing Lab Amid Cruelty Claims and Conflicting Reports

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ordered a fresh, court-monitored inspection of a Telangana-based preclinical research facility following serious allegations of animal cruelty raised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta, addresses the starkly contrasting findings of previous inspections and aims to ensure adherence to animal welfare laws.

Background of the Case

The case began when PETA India filed a writ petition against Palamur Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., a research organization conducting experiments on animals like beagle dogs and monkeys. PETA alleged it received information documenting severe abuse and neglect at the facility and urged the statutory regulatory body, the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CCSEA), to revoke the facility's license and rehabilitate the animals.

PETA's complaint prompted an initial inspection by a multi-disciplinary committee authorized by CCSEA in June 2025. The resulting report was damning, corroborating PETA's claims and highlighting "systemic failures" at Palamur Biosciences.

Conflicting Inspection Findings

The first inspection report, dated June 17, 2025, detailed a grim picture: - Systemic Failures: It described an "operational model that prioritizes experimental output over welfare, compliance, and ethical responsibility." - Inhumane Conditions: Overcrowded and barren housing, lack of environmental enrichment, and inadequate veterinary care were noted. - Unethical Procedures: The report found that painful procedures, including surgical implantations on monkeys, were conducted without proper sedation. Animals were euthanized without sedation, relying solely on physical restraint, which contradicts ethical norms. - Poor Record-Keeping: The facility’s record-keeping system was described as "virtually non-functional," obstructing regulatory oversight.

Despite these findings, a subsequent court-ordered inspection (the third overall) produced a report that, according to PETA's counsel, gave a "clean chit" to the facility. This stark contradiction, coupled with allegations of a conflict of interest against one of the inspectors, became a central issue before the court.

Petitioner and Respondent Arguments

PETA India, represented by senior counsel, argued that despite the first report's categorical findings of mismanagement and cruelty, CCSEA failed to take decisive action to protect the animals. They also challenged the integrity of the third inspection, pointing out that the expert appointed, Dr. S. G. Rama Chandran, was a member of the CCSEA Core Committee and worked at another animal experimentation facility, raising concerns about impartiality.

Palamur Biosciences, through its senior counsel Mr. Vivek Kohli, maintained that its experiments were conducted in conformity with its licenses and the law. However, they adopted a conciliatory stance in court, stating a commitment to rectify any identified shortcomings. Both Palamur and CCSEA had earlier objected to a PETA representative joining the inspection, citing confidentiality and the risk of compromising regulatory neutrality.

The Court's Decisive Order

Justice Sachin Datta noted that the third inspection was "mired in controversy" due to the absence of the court-appointed Local Commissioner and the serious conflict of interest allegations against the expert inspector.

To resolve the impasse and ensure a fair assessment, the Court disposed of the petition by ordering a fresh, fourth inspection with specific modalities:

• New Inspection Team: A three-member team will conduct the probe, comprising two members from CCSEA's previous micro-audit team (Dr. Arvind Ingle and Dr. M. Jerald Mahesh Kumar) and the court-appointed Local Commissioner, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh.
• Independent Oversight: The Local Commissioner is authorized to bring a veterinarian of her choice (with no affiliation to the petitioner) to assist during the inspection.
• Swift Action: The inspection is to be completed within three weeks, and the report shared with all parties.

Implications of the Judgment

The court directed CCSEA to take cognizance of any deficiencies revealed in the new report and take appropriate legal action. It also acknowledged the "fair stand" of Palamur Biosciences in its commitment to take immediate rectificatory steps.

Crucially, the interim order restraining Palamur Biosciences from acquiring new animals will be lifted once the new inspection is completed. However, the Court reinforced CCSEA's duty to maintain continuous regulatory oversight to ensure the facility's compliance with all applicable rules. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding animal welfare and ensuring the integrity of regulatory processes.