Delhi High Court Orders Three-Member Inspection of Preclinical Drug Testing Facility on PETA’s Plea Over Alleged Animal Cruelty
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta directed a three-member team to conduct inspections of the animal research facility run by Palamur Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., which carries out preclinical drug testing on large and small animals, including beagle dogs and mini pigs. The order came on a petition filed by animal welfare organisation PETA India, alleging abuse and neglect of animals, particularly beagles, during experiments. Citing concerns under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Court mandated a fresh inspection with independent oversight and ordered regulatory follow-up on any deficiencies found.
The petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, an animal welfare organisation registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition sought directions against Palamur Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.2), a preclinical contract research organisation engaged in experiments on large and small animals, including beagle dogs and mini pigs.
PETA alleged that it had received reports documenting abuse and neglect of animals, particularly beagles, at the facility of respondent no.2. On 10 June 2025, PETA communicated these concerns to CCSEA and other authorities, seeking revocation of respondent no.2’s registration and licences, as well as rehabilitation of the animals. A Multi-Disciplinary Expert Committee, comprising representatives from CCSEA, the Animal Welfare Board of India, the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee, and Humane Worlds for Animals India Foundation, inspected the facility on 11–12 June 2025. The committee submitted its report on 17 June 2025, highlighting systemic failures, overcrowding, inadequate veterinary care, non-functional record-keeping, and deviations from euthanasia protocols. It recommended a detailed micro-audit.
Consequently, CCSEA issued a show cause notice to respondent no.2 under Section 19 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act), and ordered a micro-audit under Section 18. A second inspection was carried out on 28–29 June 2025, and a comprehensive report was submitted on 10 July 2025. Before this report was finalised, PETA approached the Court seeking revocation of respondent no.2’s licences, permanent closure of its facility, and rehabilitation of animals.
On 8 July 2025, the Court directed CCSEA to conduct a fresh inspection with PETA’s participation and restrained respondent no.2 from procuring or housing new animals. Subsequently, applications were filed by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 challenging the inclusion of PETA in inspections, citing statutory confidentiality and security concerns. On 17 July 2025, the Court modified its order and directed inspection by CCSEA along with Dr. S.G. Rama Chandran of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, while appointing an Advocate as Local Commissioner.
Three inspection reports eventually emerged—dated 17 June, 10 July, and 24 July 2025—producing conflicting findings. PETA questioned the impartiality of Dr. Rama Chandran, citing his membership in CCSEA and professional role in an animal experimentation facility. Observing controversy over the third inspection, the Court directed a fresh inspection by a three-member team including two CCSEA scientists and the Local Commissioner, with assistance from an independent veterinarian.
The Court recorded that “The comprehensive inspection of PBPL highlights systemic failures at multiple levels of its operations to uphold animal ethics and welfare as per CCSEA guidelines.” It noted the inspection findings that housing conditions were overcrowded, barren, and inadequate, leading to stress, poor body condition, and heightened disease risk. The Court referred to the inspection report’s observations that “Veterinary care infrastructure was deeply inadequate… painful and invasive procedures… were conducted using only analgesics post procedure, with animals physically restrained without sedatives.”
The Court further quoted “The animal record-keeping system at PBPL is virtually non-functional, with key regulatory documentation either missing or grossly insufficient.” The inspection also reported that “Animals were euthanised without sedation, relying solely on physical restraint—a practice incompatible with ethical norms of humane care.”
The Court noted that the inspection conducted pursuant to its 17 July 2025 order was controversial because “the same was conducted in the absence of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court” and because of allegations regarding “conflict of interest of Dr. S.G. Rama Chandran.” The Court observed the stark contrast between findings of the first and second inspections vis-à-vis the third inspection.
The Court acknowledged the submission of counsel for PBPL that although the facility conducted experiments in conformity with licenses and statutory provisions, “if there still exist certain shortcomings in the said facility, the respondent no.2 is committed to take requisite steps to overcome / rectify the same.”
The Court directed that a fresh inspection be undertaken at PBPL’s facility with a three-member team comprising Dr. Arvind Ingle, Member of CCSEA, Dr. M. Jerald Mahesh Kumar, Principal Scientist, CCMB Hyderabad, and Advocate Ms. Shradha Deshmukh as Local Commissioner. It permitted the Local Commissioner to take assistance of an independent veterinarian, provided the veterinarian had no affiliation with the petitioner or conflict of interest, with costs to be borne by the petitioner. The inspection to be conducted within three weeks, with the Local Commissioner coordinating with the parties.
“Upon conclusion of the aforesaid exercise, the inspection report (together with recommendations, if any) shall be provided to the petitioner and the respondents. Upon receipt of the inspection report, the respondent no.1 shall take cognizance of any deficiencies… and shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The respondent no.2 shall also take immediate rectificatory steps as may be warranted.”
“The interim order dated 08.07.2025, whereby the respondent no.2 was restrained from procuring / housing any new animals at its facility, shall stand vacated upon the aforesaid inspection being conducted. The respondent no.1 shall continue to exercise its regulatory oversight in respect of the activities of the respondent no.2 to ensure… compliance with all applicable rules and guidelines.”
The petition and pending applications were disposed of in these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Ms. Arunima Kedia, Ms. Meghna Sharma, Ms. Saumya Sinha, and Mr. W. Wasin, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC along with Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Priya, Ms. Robina, and Mr. Anubhav Tyagi (GP), Advocates; Mr. Vivek Kohli, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhin, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. A. Mandal, and Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Advocates.
Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals PETA India v. The Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CCSEA) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8170
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9350/2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
