New Delhi, Jul 10 – The Delhi High Court has prohibited Palamur Biosciences Pvt Ltd from conducting animal testing due to allegations of cruelty. On July 8, Justice Sachin Datta reviewed an inspection report and photographs related to the lab, determining that urgent interim measures were necessary to enhance the welfare of the animals involved.

The court instructed the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments in Animals (CCSEA), under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, to implement immediate remedial actions for veterinary care and proper animal handling. It emphasized the need to prevent harmful practices such as euthanasia and treatment without sedatives, while also calling for the establishment of adequate habitats for the animals.

To address these concerns, the court mandated that an inspection be conducted by CCSEA, accompanied by representatives from the petitioner, within one week. Following this, the court required that necessary actions be taken within two weeks and a status report be submitted within four weeks.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India initiated the legal proceedings, alleging that Palamur Biosciences operates as a preclinical contract research organization and commercial breeder of Beagle dogs, engaging in animal experimentation and breeding. PETA India claimed to have reported instances of abusive and neglectful treatment of animals at the facility to CCSEA.

According to PETA, a multidisciplinary committee formed by CCSEA conducted an inspection of the facility and submitted its findings on June 17, yet no action has been taken since then. The organization accused the firm of continuing to engage in highly objectionable practices, including euthanasia, and stated that the animals lack suitable habitats and necessary veterinary services.

The high court has issued notices to both CCSEA and Palamur Biosciences regarding the petition, granting them three weeks to respond. The next hearing is scheduled for August 4. The CCSEA’s counsel acknowledged that the June 17 inspection report confirmed the petitioner’s concerns but indicated that subsequent showcause notices had been issued to the firm, with further audits planned before any decisive action is taken.