The End of Cosmetics Testing on Animals in India

In one line

India banned the testing of cosmetics on animals in eleven words, and they are in a rule and not in an Act.

In exam wording: rule 148-C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, inserted by the Drugs and Cosmetics (2nd Amendment) Rules 2014 published on 21 May 2014, provides that no person shall use any animal for testing of cosmetics; it was made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 read with section 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board and after the draft had been published for objections; and it operates independently of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, whose section 14 in any event does not cover cosmetic testing because that purpose falls outside the four purposes the section names.

Why it is in a rule

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 is drafted as an enabling statute. Section 12 empowers the Central Government to make rules for the purposes of Chapter III, and section 33 for the purposes of Chapter IV. Almost everything in Indian drug and cosmetic regulation is in the Rules of 1945, which run to hundreds of rules and are amended frequently.

So the answer to a question about cosmetic testing is not in the Act. A student who looks only at the statute book will conclude, wrongly, that India has no ban.

The provision

Rule 148-C, inserted after rule 148-B:

"148-C. prohibition of testing of cosmetics on animals. No person shall use any animal for testing of cosmetics."

The process. A draft was published, copies of the Gazette were made available to the public on 16 January 2014, objections and suggestions were received and considered, and the rules were then made under section 12 read with section 33 after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board. They came into force on the date of publication, 21 May 2014.

Why the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 does not do this work

Section 14 gives no immunity. It makes an experiment lawful for four purposes: advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge, knowledge useful for saving life, knowledge useful for prolonging life or alleviating suffering, and combating any disease. Commercial safety testing of a cosmetic is not within any of them.

Section 11 could have applied. Clauses (a) and (c) cover treating an animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering and wilfully and unreasonably administering an injurious substance. But the penalty is fifty rupees for a first offence, which is no deterrent to a manufacturer.

So the effective prohibition had to come from the regulator of the product. A manufacturer of cosmetics needs a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, and a breach of those Rules puts the licence at risk. That is a sanction a company notices.