Courts of the Living, the Animal Law Centre at NALSAR University of Law, the Association of Indian Primatologists, and Praana Animal Foundation are joined by the undersigned in urging the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (‘CCSEA’) under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying to immediately withdraw the Draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Control and Supervision of Experiment, Breeding and Trading of Laboratory Animals) Rules, 2026 (‘Draft Rules, 2026’) in their current form.
The Draft Rules, 2026 are bad in law, regressive for science, fall short of painstakingly-instated ethical guidelines, and are short-sighted at a time of escalating climate crisis. For the detailed Public Statement, check the Courts of the Living website here: https://www.courtsoftheliving.com/public-resources.
First, experiments involving “severe” suffering would become permissible with the Draft Rules, 2026.
Second, it erases systemic safeguards against the fundamental welfare of non-human beings, wild or domestic, and discards the basic rights of living beings in the country.
Third, much of the authority to approve experiments would remain within the establishments conducting them.
Fourth, the draft is inconsistent with the provisions of the parent act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (‘PCA’), particularly Section 17 on CCSEA’s duties and powers to make rules on experiments on animals, and would violate safeguards that already exist in Indian law.
Fifth, the Draft Rules, 2026 are not aligned with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors. (2014).
Sixth, there are inconsistencies within the Draft Rules, 2026.
Seventh, this is a case of climate maladaptation, i.e., a response to climate change that increases climate risk instead of reducing it.
Eighth, the 2023 amendment to the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019 (‘NDCT Rules’) permits non-animal, human-relevant approaches.
Finally, the Draft Rules, 2026 weaken the enforcement machinery.
Animal studies do not necessarily predict how human bodies will respond. More than 90% of drugs that clear animal studies ultimately fail to receive approval. At the same time, human-cell-based research, organ-on-chip technologies, and other non-animal methods are providing increasingly promising alternatives, and Indian scientists are already using and advancing these approaches. As of 2026, experts confirm that, in certain areas of drug development, validated non-animal methods could reduce costs and timelines. The continued use of animal experimentation is, in reality, directing precious resources away from cost-effective and climate-proofed testing methods. Redirecting state research funding toward high-tech, non-animal platforms aligns directly with national goals for high-value scientific self-reliance. It also reflects global developments where regulatory bodies and scientific institutions are actively phasing out animal models in favor of human-relevant testing approaches. By clinging to outdated, high-suffering animal experiments rather than making non-animal alternatives mandatory, the Draft Rules, 2026 risk isolating Indian science from developments in the international arena.
India’s transition in scientific approaches should not depend on avoidable suffering, as the suffering at its core is unscientific. Rather, it should ensure that scientific advancement becomes synonymous with humane approaches, making India a pioneer not just in scientific breakthroughs but also in the execution of such progress, setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. Scientific practices must remain open to ethical scrutiny, especially when the beings subjected to them cannot refuse or whose voices are often unheard. We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the Draft Rules, 2026, which are against the ethos and jurisprudence of this country, as well as international developments on animal rights, wellbeing, and welfare.
We therefore call for:
Withdrawal and comprehensive redrafting of the Draft Rules, 2026, with meaningful public and independent scientific consultation together with diverse voices amongst communities of animal rights activists, scientists, lawyers, and scholars.
Mandating biosecurity risk assessments, documented reasons for severity classifications, a mechanism to challenge assessments, traceability and safeguards against unauthorised use, and robust enforcement.
Mandatory use of validated non-animal methods wherever they can fulfill the scientific purpose, with independent scrutiny of any claimed need for animal experimentation.
An absolute prohibition on sourcing free-roaming, community, or wild-caught animals for experimentation, together with absolute restrictions protecting vulnerable species.
Stronger independent oversight and enforceable welfare protections, including clear limits on severe experiments, cumulative suffering and reuse; restrictions on unnecessary repetition, a named person accountable for project-level welfare monitoring; and binding requirements for post-experiment care and rehabilitation.
