Delhi HC Orders Fresh Inspection of Palamur Biosciences After PETA Allegations

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ordered a fresh inspection of Palamur Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. (PBPL), a preclinical research facility in Telangana, after conflicting inspection reports and allegations of cruelty towards animals. The Court ruled that the earlier inspection was tainted by procedural lapses and possible conflict of interest and directed a new, three-member team to carry out the audit.

The judgment was pronounced by Justice Sachin Datta, who observed that the integrity of the regulatory process was at stake and that transparency in animal welfare inspections could not be compromised.

The case was filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India, seeking cancellation of PBPL’s license to breed and use animals, permanent closure of its facility, and rehabilitation of the animals housed there. PETA alleged that beagles and other animals were subjected to cruel conditions, inadequate veterinary care, and non-compliant euthanasia practices.

Following these complaints, the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CCSEA) initially conducted an inspection in June 2025, which reported systemic failures, overcrowding, poor veterinary care, lack of enrichment, and inhumane euthanasia procedures. A second micro-audit confirmed serious lapses. However, a third inspection ordered by the Court in July 2025 presented a starkly different picture, virtually clearing PBPL of violations—leading to allegations of bias and conflict of interest against one of the inspectors.

PETA argued that:

• Multiple inspections had already established grave cruelty and regulatory non-compliance.
• Despite these findings, the authorities failed to revoke PBPL’s license or ensure rehabilitation of the animals.
• The third inspection was compromised since it excluded the Court-appointed Local Commissioner and involved an inspector with conflict of interest.

PBPL, through senior counsel, maintained that it operates strictly within the law and under valid licenses. It asserted that the facility complies with animal welfare regulations, but added that “if there still exist certain shortcomings… the respondent no.2 is committed to take requisite steps to overcome/rectify the same.” CCSEA, on its part, defended the regulatory process but agreed to abide by any fresh directions issued by the Court.

Justice Datta noted that:

• The third inspection was conducted in the absence of the Local Commissioner, undermining the credibility of the exercise.
• Allegations of conflict of interest against one of the inspectors cast further doubt on the validity of the report.
• The stark contradictions between the first two inspection reports and the third one demanded a fresh, unbiased evaluation.
• Ensuring animal welfare under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was a statutory responsibility that could not be diluted by procedural lapses.

The Court directed:

“a fresh inspection be undertaken at the facility of the respondent no.2. The inspection team shall comprise three members—Dr. Arvind Ingle (Member, CCSEA), Dr. M. Jerald Mahesh Kumar (Principal Scientist, CCMB, Hyderabad), and Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Local Commissioner appointed earlier. The Local Commissioner may also take the assistance of a veterinarian without conflict of interest. The inspection shall be conducted within three weeks, videographed, and the report submitted to both parties. Upon receipt of the report, CCSEA shall take cognizance of any deficiencies and the respondent no.2 shall take immediate rectificatory steps.”

The Court also vacated its earlier interim order restraining PBPL from procuring new animals but stressed that CCSEA must continue its oversight to ensure compliance with animal welfare norms.