Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: 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