Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Ms. Arunima Kedia, Ms. Meghna Sharma, Ms. Saumya Sinha and
Mr. W. Wasin, Advocates.
FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC along with Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Ms. Priya, Ms. Robina and Mr. Anubhav Tyagi
(GP), Advocates.
Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhin, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. A. Mandal, Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Advocates for
R-2.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayers: “a. Issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent No. 1 to revoke the licenses and registrations granted to Respondent No. 2 to breed or use animals and to permanently shut down the facility; b. Issue appropriate directions for rehabilitation of the animals currently housed at the facility of Respondent No. 2; c. Award costs of this petition; and e. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.
2. The petitioner is a reputed animal welfare organisation registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, that works extensively towards the prevention of animal suffering/exploitation. Respondent no.1/The Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animal (CCSEA), Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, is a Committee constituted under Section 15(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as “PCA Act”) for the purpose of controlling and supervising experimentation on animals and has the power to regulate its own procedure in relation to the performance of its duties; respondent no.2/Palamur Biosciences Pvt. Ltd., is a Preclinical Contract Research Organisation which operates an integrated research facility capable of conducting extensive research involving both large and small animals, including beagle dogs, mini pigs etc. and, is registered with the respondent no.1, and also holds approvals/ certification from various other bodies.
3. The factual background, as canvassed by the petitioner is that it received information which allegedly documented/reported abuse and neglect of animals while carrying out experimentation and treatment of beagles used for breeding at the facility of respondent no.2. The petitioner reported the same on 10.06.2025 to the respondent no.1, and various other concerned authorities. The petitioner sought initiation of appropriate action against the respondent no.2, including revocation of its registration and permission to breed and experiment on animals and, the rehabilitation of the surviving animals.
4. Consequently, a Multi-Disciplinary Expert Committee, authorized by the respondent no.1, comprising of members from CCSEA/respondent no.1, the Animal Welfare Board of India, the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee, and Humane Worlds for Animals India Foundation was constituted to conduct an inspection of the facility of respondent no.2 located at Karvena (Village) Bhoothpur (Mandal) Mahabubnagar-District- 509001, Telangana. The said Committee conducted inspections on 11.06.2025 and 12.06.2025 and thereafter submitted a report on 17.06.2025, recording observations which corroborated the information in receipt of the petitioner viz. the acts of cruelty and regulatory lapses by respondent no.2, and recommended a detailed Micro Audit of the respondent no.2 facility. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under: -
“X. Discussion The comprehensive inspection of PBPL highlights systemic failures at multiple levels of its operations to uphold animal ethics and welfare as per CCSEA guidelines. PBPL's approach to animal research demonstrates an operational model that prioritizes experimental output over welfare, compliance, and ethical responsibility. Despite its extensive use of dogs, non-human primates, pigs, and other species, PBPL has failed to implement even the most basic standards of care mandated by CCSEA. Housing conditions were consistently found to be overcrowded, barren, and inadequate, leading to significant welfare concerns such as elevated stress, noise, poor body condition, and heightened risk of infectious diseases. Essential aspects such as environmental enrichment, social interaction, and proper bedding were either entirely absent or grossly insufficient across all species. The breeding facilities were particularly concerning, with overproduction of animals resulting in unauthorized repurposing of experimental spaces as stock rooms, unscreened animal transfers, and potential biosecurity risks. Veterinary care infrastructure was deeply inadequate. The facility maintained minimal medical supplies, lacked essential analgesics, sedatives, and anaesthetics, and failed to maintain proper treatment records. Notably, no protocol was in place to manage anxiety, fear, or distress-an essential component of humane animal care. Painful and invasive procedures, such as those performed on monkeys involving surgical implantation, were conducted using only analgesics post procedure, with animals physically restrained without sedatives. Similarly, dogs euthanised at the conclusion of research were not sedated before the administration of thiopentone sodium. These practices reflect glaring omissions in veterinary planning and a disregard for psychological wellbeing. The animal record-keeping system at PBPL is virtually non-functional, with key regulatory documentation either missing or grossly insufficient. Without breeding records, reuse data, health histories, or procedural logs, PBPL operates in opaque conditions that obstruct regulatory oversight. The deliberate non-cooperation during inspection - notably the failure to provide CCTV footage from critical areas - raises serious questions about transparency and intent. The inspection also uncovered troubling deviations from approved euthanasia protocols. Animals were euthanised without sedation, relying solely on physical restraint-a practice incompatible with ethical norms of humane care. The high euthanasia rate suggests an unsustainable use pattern where large numbers of animals are systematically killed after experimental use, with limited rehabilitation or rehoming efforts.
XI. Conclusion
The operational deficiencies observed at PBPL are not isolated incidents but indicative of entrenched structural, procedural, and ethical failures. The scale and severity of noncompliance documented during the inspection raise significant concerns regarding the facility's adherence to established standards of animal welfare and regulatory accountability. The situation demands urgent attention-particularly with respect to the removal and rehabilitation of animals to prevent further pain, distress, or suffering. The findings also call for a critical review of the facility's registration and breeding licence, in view of the serious and repeated deviations from prescribed norms. A detailed micro-audit of PBPL's Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) is imperative, including a comprehensive reconciliation of records relating to breeding, procurement, experimentation, reuse, rehabilitation, transfer, euthanasia, and disposal. Such scrutiny is essential to evaluate compliance with approved protocols and to verify the accuracy and integrity of reported data.”
5. The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 inter-alia discloses that consequent to the inspection report dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the multidisciplinary committee, the respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice dated 25.06.2025 under Section 19 of the PCA Act to the respondent no.2 and in terms of Section 18 of the PCA Act constituted a second inspection team for conducting a micro audit at the facility of respondent no.2. Subsequently, the second inspection team conducted audits at the facility of respondent no.2 between 28.06.2025 and 29.06.2025 and submitted a comprehensive report on 10.07.2025.
6. In the meantime (prior to submission of the comprehensive report dated 10.07.2025 by the second inspection team), the present petition was preferred before this Court inter-alia seeking to direct the respondent no.1 to revoke the licenses and registrations granted to respondent no.2 to breed or use animals and to permanently shut down the said facility.
7. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that, despite a detailed inspection of the said facility being undertaken by respondent no.1, resulting in categorical findings in the inspection report dated 17.06.2025 as regards mismanagement and failure to adhere to applicable norms and recommendation for immediate rehabilitation of the animals housed at the facility of the respondent no.2, respondent no.1 failed to address the violation of animals’ rights and regulatory non-compliances taking place at the hands of the respondent no.2 at its facility.
8. Considering the averments made in the present petition, this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 directed respondent no.1 to conduct a fresh inspection along with a representative of the petitioner and restrained the respondent no.2 from procuring/housing any new animals at its facility till the aforesaid exercise is being conducted. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “..................................
13. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 is directed to take immediate steps to ensure that the necessary remedial steps are taken, and measures put in place for providing veterinary treatment, proper handling of animals and also to prevent proliferation of practices such as euthanasia, treatment without sedatives, etc. Adequate arrangement is also required to be placed for proper habitat of the animals.
14. For the aforesaid purpose, let an inspection be conducted by the respondent no.1 along with representatives of the petitioner to identify the areas of concern. Let the same be done within one week. Let requisite steps be taken within a period of two weeks thereafter. Let a Status Report be filed within four weeks from today.
15. Till the aforesaid exercise is conducted, the respondent no.2 is restrained from procuring/ housing any new animals at its facility.”
9. However, respondent no.2 preferred two applications before this Court in the present proceedings [CM APPL.41110/2025 and CM APPL.41112/2025] seeking modification and recall of the aforesaid directions in the order dated 08.07.2025, and in particular paragraph 14 thereof, apprehending that permitting a representative of the petitioner to accompany inspecting authority to the facility of respondent no.2 would tantamount to allowing an adversarial and non-regulatory party, access to sensitive research areas with potential likelihood of misuse of such access.
10. An application [CM APPL.41783/2025] was also filed by the respondent no.1 seeking modification of the aforementioned order, in particular paragraph 14 thereof, averring that joint inspection with a private third-party (i) is contrary to the statutory mechanism under the PCA Act, which vests inspection and enforcement powers exclusively with respondent no.1 and its authorized personnel/s (ii) undermines statutory confidentiality, risks procedural irregularity and compromises the regulatory neutrality intended by law.
11. In view of the aforesaid applications, with consent of the parties to the present proceedings, vide order dated 17.07.2025 paragraph 14 of the order dated 08.07.2025 was modified and a Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court to act as an observer during the said inspection. The order dated 17.07.2025 reads as under: -
inspection. Let a report be also filed by the said Local Commissioner before the next date of hearing. The Local Commissioner shall be paid fees of Rs. 1 lakh, to be borne by the petitioner.
7. The rest of the directions contained in the order dated 08.07.2025 shall continue to operate.”
12. In terms of the aforesaid orders, an inspection was conducted by Dr. S.K Dutta, Member Secretary of respondent no.1 and Dr. S.G. Rama Chandran, Chief Scientist, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore. Consequently, a report dated 24.07.2025 has been placed on record and perused by this Court.
13. It transpires that although an inspection was conducted in the aftermath of the aforesaid orders dated 08.07.2025 and 17.07.2025, the Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 17.07.2025 did not participate therein, in view of the circumstances narrated in the report dated 01.08.2025, filed by the Local Commissioner. The same inter alia states as under: “....................................................
6. In response, an email was received on 24.07.2024 from Ms. Saumya Sinha, Counsel for the Petitioner, marking a copy to the CPCEA-MEF, Mr. Rammurthy, Dr. SK Dutta, Mr. SG Ramachandra, Ms. Pritha Srikumar and Mr. Sulabh Rewari, wherein it was stated that the Petitioner had orally mentioned the matter on 21.07.2025 before the Hon’ble High Court in the presence of Respondent No. 1’s counsel and Dr Tyagi, seeking alteration to the attendees of the inspection. It was also stated that upon mentioning, the Hon’ble High Court had directed that an Application for the said relief be filed by the Petitioner. The email noted that a copy of the said Application had been served upon CCSEA and the same was to be listed before the Hon’ble High Court in a day or so. A copy of the Application seeking Modification of the Order dated 17.07.2025 was also enclosed alongwith the said Email, where objections were raised regarding the impartiality of the Sr. Scientist to conduct the said inspection.
7. Furthermore, the said e-mail stated that the Petitioner had been kept out of the loop in relation to the said inspection despite the fact that CCSEA had vide its letter dated 22.07.2025 asked the Petitioner to coordinate with the Court Commissioner in relation to the inspection. Accordingly, a request was made by the Counsel for the Petitioner to defer the inspection until further orders were passed by the Hon’ble High Court. A copy of the Email dated 24.07.2025 received from the Petitioner along with its enclosed attachments is attached herewith as ANNEXURE A-5.
8. Having been made aware of the pendency of the Application before the Hon’ble High Court, which as per the statement of the Petitioner, was filed pursuant to the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court on an oral mentioning, and where a challenge had been made to the independence of the Sr. Scientist who was to conduct the very inspection, I felt it appropriate that the inspection be deferred until a decision was taken by the Hon’ble High Court in relation to the same.
9. Accordingly, I addressed an email on 24.07.2025 to both the parties, stating that it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Hon’ble High Court and conduct the inspection subject to the directions, if any, passed by the Hon’ble High Court with respect to the Application. I requested both the parties to keep me informed regarding the outcome of the said Application so that the next date of the inspection could be scheduled with the mutual consent of the parties. A copy of the email dated 24.07.2025 is attached herewith as ANNEXURE A-6............”
14. The petitioner, by way of an application bearing CM No. 44484/2025 has, inter-alia, averred that Dr. S. G. Rama Chandran (who was directed to conduct the inspection in terms of directions contained in the order dated 17.07.2025) has a ‘conflict of interest’ since (i), as per the official records he has been serving as the Chief Research Scientist since 1991 at the Central Animal Facility, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, which itself is an animal experimentation facility, and as such is focused on ‘animal use’ as compared to welfare (ii) vide notification dated 16.01.2025 Dr. S. G. Rama Chandran was notified as a member of respondent no.1 Core Committee itself.
15. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner also submits that in contradiction to the findings rendered in an earlier inspection conducted on 11.06.2025 and 12.06.2025 at the same facility by the Multi-Disciplinary Committee, the third inspection report placed before this Court virtually gives a clean chit to the respondent no.2.
16. Evidently, till date three inspections have been conducted in respect of the facility of the respondent no.2: i. Multi-Disciplinary Committee constituted by respondent no.1 conducted an inspection on 11.06.2025 and 12.06.2025, and thereafter submitted its inspection report on 17.06.2025 (hereinafter referred as “the first inspection”). ii. Micro Audit /second inspection committee constituted by the respondent no.1 conducted inspection between 28.06.2025 and 29.06.2025, and thereafter submitted an inspection report dated 10.07.2025 (hereinafter referred as “the second inspection”). iii. Inspection conducted by a committee constituted pursuant to the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 in the present proceedings, which submitted a report dated 24.07.2025 (hereinafter referred as “the third inspection”).
17. The stark contrast between the findings rendered in the latest inspection report submitted by respondent no.1 and Dr. S. G. Rama Chandran (pursuant to order dated 17.07.2025) vis-a-vis the earlier inspections has been encapsulated in the following chart submitted by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner:
18. During the course of proceedings, Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that although the respondent no.2 facility conducts experiments in strict conformity with the terms of Licenses and the POCA Act and Rule framed thereunder, 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.
19. It is evident that the inspection conducted pursuant to order dated 17.07.2025 is mired in controversy inasmuch as (i) the same was conducted in the absence of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 (in view of the circumstances enumerated by the Local Commissioner in her affidavit); (ii) serious allegations have been made by the petitioner as regards ‘conflict of interest’ of Dr. S. G. Rama Chandran (who, along with the Local Commissioner, was entrusted with the task of inspection at the facility of the respondent no.2).
20. In the circumstances, it is directed that a fresh inspection be undertaken at the facility of the respondent no.2. The modalities for conduct of the inspection shall be as under: i. The inspection team shall comprise of three members viz.: (a) Dr. Arvind Ingle, Member of CCSEA; (b) Dr. M. Jerald Mahesh Kumar, Principal Scientist CCMB, Hyderabad (both being members of committee constituted by the respondent no.1 for conducting micro-audit on 28.06.2025 and 29.06.2025); and
(c) Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Local Commissioner (appointed by this
Court in the present proceedings vide order dated 17.07.2025). ii. The aforesaid Local Commissioner shall be entitled to take the assistance of a veterinarian who shall accompany the Local Commissioner during the inspection. The Local Commissioner shall ensure that the veterinarian neither has affiliation with the petitioner nor has any conflict of interest with either of the parties. The cost/s for the same shall be borne by the petitioner. iii. The inspection shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three weeks from today. The Local Commissioner shall coordinate with the concerned parties and the other members of the Inspection team to fix the date and time for the aforesaid inspection. iv. For the aforesaid exercise, the Local Commissioner shall be paid a sum of Rs.[2] Lakhs by the petitioner (in addition to expenses and the fee/s directed to be paid to the Local Commissioner vide order dated 17.07.2025). The charges for the other members of the Inspection Committee (if any) shall be borne by the respondent no.1 and / or the respondent no.2.
21. 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 that may be revealed in the inspection report and shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The respondent no.2 shall also take immediate rectificatory steps as may be warranted in terms of the inspection report and/or directions issued by the respondent no.1. This Court acknowledges the fair stand of Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2, that appropriate rectificatory steps (as may be required) shall be taken if any deficiencies are found during inspection.
22. 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.
23. Needless to say, the respondent no.1 shall continue to exercise its regulatory oversight in respect of the activities of the respondent no.2 to ensure that the said respondent is in compliance with all applicable rules and guidelines.
24. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 r, sl