Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Rules: Annual Approval for Pharmacy Courses Unlawful

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

Justice C. Hari Shankar emphasizes course approvals under Pharmacy Act are for entire duration, not annual renewals.

 

 

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Pharmacy Council of India's (PCI) mandate requiring pharmacy colleges to seek annual approval for their courses is illegal. The judgment, delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar on July 1, 2024, clarified that once a course is approved under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, it remains valid for its entire duration and does not require yearly renewal.

 

 

Several pharmacy colleges, including SLS College of Pharmacy, filed writ petitions challenging the PCI's decision to demand annual approvals and associated fees. The institutions argued that the practice was not supported by the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and imposed an undue burden on them. They contested Clauses 10(ii), (iii), and (iv) and Clause 11(v) of the PCI's December 2023 communication, which enforced these requirements.

Justice Shankar emphasized that the PCI's actions must align with the statutory framework of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The court examined the legislative intent and regulatory provisions, concluding that the approval granted under Section 12 is for the course's entire duration, not limited to a single academic year.

The court scrutinized the PCI's procedure and found no basis in the Act or Regulations for requiring annual renewals. It underscored the importance of maintaining educational standards through consistent regulatory oversight but stressed that such oversight must be grounded in statutory provisions.

The judgment reaffirmed the High Court's authority to review decisions of regulatory bodies, especially when such decisions appear arbitrary or lack a statutory basis. Justice Shankar delineated the limits of judicial review, asserting that while deference is given to specialized bodies, their actions must still conform to the law.

Justice Shankar extensively analyzed Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, clarifying that the term "course of study" refers to the entire duration of the course, such as B. Pharm or D. Pharm, and not to each individual academic year. "The approval, once granted, is meant to be for the entirety of the course, unless withdrawn under specific conditions outlined in the Act," the judgment stated.

Justice Shankar noted, "The insistence on annual approvals is not supported by the Pharmacy Act or any of its Regulations. Such an interpretation is not only unsustainable but also imposes unnecessary administrative and financial burdens on educational institutions."

The Delhi High Court's decision marks a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for pharmacy education in India. By ruling that approvals under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act are valid for the entire course duration, the judgment alleviates the procedural and financial pressures on institutions. This landmark ruling is expected to streamline the approval process, ensuring that educational standards are upheld without imposing unwarranted requirements on institutions.

 

Date of Decision: July 1, 2024

SLS College of Pharmacy vs. Pharmacy Council of India

Latest Legal News