Scientists, animal welfare groups demand withdrawal of Draft Animal Testing Rules
Scientists, veterinarians, lawmakers and more than 60 animal welfare organisations have opposed the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 2026, seeking its complete withdrawal. Critics object to provisions allowing the use of protected wildlife and stray animals in experiments, reduced CCSEA oversight, and prior notice for inspections.
Hyderabad: Resistance is mounting against the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Control and Supervision of Experiment, Breeding and Trading of Laboratory Animals) Rules, 2026.
What began as a regulatory concern has snowballed into a nationwide pushback, uniting scientists, veterinarians, cross-party lawmakers, and over 60 animal protection organizations who are demanding the total withdrawal of the draft in its present form, which was released by the Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD) under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
At the heart of the standoff are fundamental disagreements over scope, institutional oversight, and scientific modernization.
Several animal rights organisations are opposing the scope of experimentation under Draft Rule 5, which introduces exceptions permitting the capture and use of protected wildlife, wild-caught animals, and stray or feral community dogs and cats in laboratory experiments under specified circumstances. Animal rights groups argue these provisions expose vulnerable animals to increased trauma, confinement, and invasive procedures.
Groups are also opposing Draft Rule 11, which proposes reduction in direct, independent oversight by the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CCSEA), allowing animal experiments to be approved internally at the institutional level.
There is also anger over a proposed rule that makes it mandatory for animal welfare inspection teams to inform the laboratory before their visit. Animal welfare organisations argue that internal approvals to conduct animal experiments dilute vital checks and balances, while advance warning of conduct inspections makes it impossible to catch violations.
Animal protection groups point out that the draft does not have stringent safeguards related to the mandatory use of anaesthesia, restrictions on paralysing agents, humane euthanasia standards, and post-experimental rehabilitation. The rules must explicitly forbid or strictly govern procedures involving severe, avoidable distress like electric shocks, forced toxicity tests where death is the endpoint, and induced tumours, they said.
