Please click here to download the Prism as PDF.
Proposed overhaul of regulatory framework for experimentation, breeding and trading of laboratory animals
The Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (“CCSEA”), on September 30, 2026, has issued the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Control and Supervision of Experiment, Breeding and Trading of Laboratory Animals) Rules, 2026 (“Draft Rules”). Once in force, the Draft Rules would replace the Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1968 and the Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Rules, 1998 (“1998 Rules”).
If notified in their present form, the Draft Rules would introduce a more detailed, severity-based compliance framework for organisations working with laboratory animals, while offering the regulatory certainty that could strengthen India’s position as a hub for pre-clinical and contract research.
The Draft Rules are presently open for objections and suggestions, which may be submitted to the Member Secretary, CCSEA by November 5, 2026, offering industry a timely opportunity to shape the final framework.
Scope and applicability
The Draft Rules would apply where animals are used or are intended to be used in experiments, as well as where animals are specifically bred so that their organs or tissues may be used for scientific purposes. They would continue to apply until the animal is euthanised or rehabilitated to a suitable habitat or husbandry system after the experiment ends. An experiment does not fall outside the Draft Rules merely because anesthesia, analgesia or other methods can eliminate pain, suffering or distress.
The proposed framework applies to live non-human vertebrate animals, including independent feeding larval forms of fishes, embryonated eggs and foetal forms of mammals as from the last third stage of their normal development. Certain activities are expressly excluded, including:
- non-experimental agricultural and clinical veterinary practices;
- recognised animal husbandry practices;
- veterinary clinical field trial required for the marketing authorization of a legally approved veterinary medicinal product except test batch and quality control trial for batch manufacturing;
- procedures primarily for identification of an animal; and
- procedures not expected to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to or greater than that caused by the introduction of a needle in accordance with good veterinary practice.
Express obligation to apply Replacement, Reduction and Refinement
The 1998 Rules, as amended by the Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Supervision) Amendment Rules, 2006, already reflect the concepts behind Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (“3Rs”). They require that animals lowest on the phylogenetic scale capable of providing scientifically valid results be considered first, that experiments use the minimum number of animals necessary for statistically valid results, and that replacement alternatives not involving animal experimentation receive due consideration[1].
Rule 7 of the Draft Rules would turn these concepts into an express obligation. Registered establishments carrying out experiments would be required to implement the principles of the 3Rs, as follows:
- Replacement: Use scientifically satisfactory alternatives to live-animal experimentation wherever possible.
- Reduction: Use the minimum number of animals necessary for scientifically valid and statistically reliable results without compromising project objectives.
- Refinement: eliminate or minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm through improved breeding, housing, care and experimental methods, including enrichment, veterinary practices and validated humane endpoints.
Classification of experiments based on severity
A major feature of the Draft Rules, under Rule 3 read with Annexure-I, is the proposed classification of experiments into ‘non-recovery’, ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ categories, determined on a case-by-case basis by reference to the degree of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm likely to be experienced by an animal. The Draft Rules also bar experiments involving severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to last for a long period and cannot be relieved. The classification matters because it will also determine who approves an experiment.
Revised approval framework for experiments
While the 1998 Rules require CCSEA or Institutional Animals Ethics Committee (“IAEC”) permission before animal acquisition or experimentation, Rule 11 of the Draft Rules would allocate approval responsibility by experiment severity and animal category. Severe and non-recovery experiments involving animals above rodents and lagomorphs would require online submission to the CCSEA following IAEC recommendation, with a decision envisaged within 30 (thirty) working days. Mild and moderate experiments involving any animal would require IAEC approval only. For animals above lagomorphs, the IAEC must report to the CCSEA at study initiation, interim progress and completion, covering progress, deviations and compliance with the 3Rs.
Key registration and compliance requirements
- Establishments, breeders and traders would require CCSEA registration. Registration of animal-house establishments, including the IAEC, would generally remain valid for 3 (three) years.
- Use of protected, wild, stray and feral animals and non-human primates would be subject to category-specific restrictions, scientific justification and applicable permissions or exemptions.
- Appropriately qualified and trained personnel, supporting records and a designated veterinarian would be required, with all experiments conducted under veterinary supervision.
- Animal procurement and transfer would ordinarily be restricted to registered entities. Specified exceptions would require prior IAEC approval, documentation and veterinary quarantine; imports would remain subject to applicable policies.
- Breeders and traders must submit quarterly IAEC reports and annual CCSEA reports by March 31. The main nominee and the socially aware nominee must inspect animal houses at least twice a year.
- Research institutions or agencies outside the Draft Rules’ definitions may outsource animal-related research to CCSEA-registered establishments.
Conclusion
While the Draft Rules strengthen animal welfare and compliance obligations, they may also provide operational benefits for pharmaceutical, biotechnology and contract research organisations. In particular, the proposed severity-based approval framework, defined allocation of responsibilities between the CCSEA and IAECs, and prescribed approval timelines for certain categories of studies may improve regulatory certainty and project planning. By setting out a more structured framework for approvals, registration, sourcing, personnel qualifications, veterinary oversight and reporting, the Draft Rules may also make India more attractive for pre-clinical and contract research. For organisations that conduct or outsource animal-based research, the framework may make study management more efficient, standardise compliance and bring practices closer to global quality and governance expectations. It may also support India’s growing role as a research and development hub for the life sciences sector.
This Prism has been prepared by:
Sajai Singh | Kiran Patel
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com
[1] Rule 9(bb) of the 1998 Rules requires that, for any experimental procedure, animals lowest on the phylogenetic scale that can give scientifically valid results be considered first, and that experiments be designed to use the minimum number of animals needed to produce statistically valid results at a 95% degree of confidence.
The proviso to Rule 9(bb) further requires due and full consideration of replacement alternatives that do not involve animal experiments, and a sound justification where available alternatives are not used.
