Judgment of Justice Sachin Datta, pronounced on . Summary, then paragraphs 20 to 24 word for word. The full text is linked on Caseon; the court’s own copy is on the Delhi High Court website.
PETA India asked the court to have CCSEA revoke Palamur Biosciences’ licences and registrations and to rehabilitate the animals. Three inspections had been held: by a multidisciplinary committee on 11 and (report of 17 June), a micro-audit on 28 and 29 June (report of 10 July), and one ordered by the court on 17 July (report of 24 July). The court found the third “mired in controversy”, as it was held without the Local Commissioner and PETA India alleged a conflict of interest, and ordered a fresh one.
Paragraphs 20 to 24
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.
