Failure to Put Dying Declarations to Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Vitiates Trial: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Acquittal in Murder-by-Fire Case Child Witness Cannot Be Treated as a Routine Witness: Supreme Court Criticises Trial Court for Recording Minor’s Testimony Without Competency Assessment Legal Wife Is Entitled To Family Pension — But If Will Is Validly Executed, Other Benefits May Go To Second Wife : Andhra Pradesh High Court Thinking of Adultery from the Point of Criminality Would Be a Retrograde Step: Delhi High Court Quashes Summoning in Post-Joseph Shine Era A Stranger to a Decree Cannot Claim Injury Unless He Shows Adverse Impact: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Challenge to Compromise over Debottar Property Transfer to a Lower Non-Cadre Post Without Consent Amounts to Deputation: Rajasthan High Court Sentence Is Not a Mere Form, But a Tool to Balance Justice and Reformation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces 3-Year Sentence to Time Already Undergone Seized Money Must Circulate, Not Rot in Lockers: Orissa High Court Allows Release of ₹15 Lakh to Accused in Ponzi Scam Mere Issuance of Cheque Does Not Establish Legally Enforceable Debt: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Dishonour Case Under Section 138 NI Act Date of Filing Income Tax Return Irrelevant for Assessing Pre-Accident Income: Supreme Court Restores Full Compensation in Fatal Motor Accident Case Sanction Is Mandatory for Prosecution of Public Servant Even While on Deputation: Supreme Court Affirms Protection Under Section 197 CrPC for Government Officers on Deputation Compensation Must Not Lie in Dormancy: Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions for Disbursal of ₹1000+ Crores Stuck in MACTs and Labour Courts Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Is a Just Ground for Divorce Under Article 142:  Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage After 11 Years of Separation Land Acquisition | Compensation Based on Post-Notification Auction Sales Is Legally Unsustainable:  Supreme Court Slashes Exaggerated Land Value in Outer Ring Road Acquisition Case Promises in Manifesto, Even if Labelled as Freebies, Cannot Be Corrupt Practices – Karnataka High Court Dismisses Election Petition Against CM Siddaramaiah

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 News