Animal protection investigations are one of the most effective ways to bring hidden cruelty into public view. When evidence is shared through campaigns, media, and legal action, investigations can push industries and governments toward change. However, investigators often face emotional strain, financial insecurity, and limited access to training and other forms of support.

Sentient, a non-profit that works to strengthen animal protection investigations worldwide, examined these challenges in India. India was chosen as a pilot country for several reasons, including its large population of animals used for food, sporadic enforcement of weak animal welfare legislation, and growing public concern and media interest in animal protection. Sentient’s report focuses on farmed animals due to the scale of suffering involved and the considerable potential for investigations in this sector to influence campaigns, corporate practices, and policy change.

The report draws on interviews conducted between April and September 2025 with 19 anonymized investigators and animal advocates working in India. Desk research and insights from global studies were also incorporated to place the findings within a broader context. The report maps the current state of investigative work in the country and outlines opportunities to build a stronger and more sustainable investigative ecosystem.

Animals Used For Food In India

India’s farmed animal sector includes cows, buffalo, chickens, ducks, fishes, shrimps, goats, sheep, pigs, and camels.

Dairy animals are subjected to repeated breeding, long-term tethering, calf separation, and long-distance transport. Farmed birds experience cramped battery cages or overcrowded sheds, live defeathering, and slaughter without stunning. Aquatic animals endure practices such as eyestalk ablation, asphyxiation, live descaling, and chilling in ice slurry.

Species that are raised in smaller numbers or regionally concentrated, including goats, sheep, pigs, camels, and ducks, are often slaughtered in informal or illegal settings, transported under extreme conditions, and subjected to rough handling, all with limited to no regulatory oversight.

Across species, investigations remain limited despite clear welfare concerns. Investigators often face heightened risk of backlash due to cultural sensitivities around local livelihoods and traditions. Thus, large numbers of animals receive little sustained attention, leaving them absent from public discourse and advocacy efforts.

Operational Risks For Investigators

Investigators described working in conditions that are poorly regulated, unsafe, and unpredictable, especially at wet markets and illegal slaughterhouses. They reported being subjected to threats of physical violence and equipment confiscation, despite property owners not being legally permitted to use force. In practice, weak and selective enforcement often outweighs formal legal protections. Women investigators face additional safety risks, particularly in rural and conservative areas. Gaining access to farms and dairies is also increasingly difficult, as suspicion toward outsiders is growing.

Gaps In Investigative Infrastructure

Investigative work often lacks sustained support, leaving investigations fragmented and dependent on personal risk-taking and short-term efforts. Key challenges include:

• A small and isolated community: Investigators usually work alone or on short-term assignments. There’s no strong peer network to share resources or support well-being. Many face isolation, stress, anxiety, and burnout.
• Legal uncertainty and risk: Investigators often operate without clear legal guidance or access to trusted legal support. Weak enforcement and official complicity discourage the use of legal channels and increase the risk of retaliation. Also, while admissible in court, undercover evidence may be given less weight or seen as less credible. This creates uncertainty for investigators over the value of their footage in legal settings.
• Professional insecurity: Investigations are rarely seen as a viable career path. Limited training opportunities, financial instability, and the absence of clear progression lead to high turnover and difficulty recruiting new investigators.
• Limited resources: Access to reliable equipment, training, and mental health support is limited. Many investigators rely on outdated or improvised tools that they pay for themselves.
• Lack of coordination: Footage often remains unused because there’s no clear path to turn raw material into media stories, campaign reports, or legal briefs. Coordination between independent investigators and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is also limited. Funding often goes toward visible campaigns rather than the backend infrastructure investigations rely on.

Limitations

The report is based on consultations with a relatively small number of participants and doesn’t represent every region or form of animal use in India. Thus, the findings can be seen as a foundation for further region- and sector-specific research.

Turning Evidence Into Impact

Strengthening investigations in India will require coordinated, long-term investment. But with public concern, media interest, and NGO engagement rising, there are several promising opportunities to address current gaps. These include:

• Professionalizing investigations by offering training and fellowship programs.
• Expanding access to equipment like hidden cameras via a shared equipment bank.
• Providing legal and well-being support, including pro bono legal guidance, legislative training, and mental health resources.
• Building partnerships with NGOs to better connect investigators with advocacy efforts.
• Engaging the public through creative, accessible campaigns grounded in investigative findings.

India doesn’t lack evidence of animal cruelty; it lacks the resources and support to turn evidence into lasting change. By strengthening infrastructure and focusing on high-impact regions, investigations can move beyond isolated exposés and begin driving systemic reform.