The Delhi High Court has passed a judgment quashing the necessity for yearly continuation of approval for pharmacy course of study. This order was passed by Justice C Hari Shankar on July 1, 2024.
Facts of the Case
This case involved a dispute between the petitioner, SLS College of Pharmacy, and the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) regarding the renewal of course approvals. The petitioner college offers B. Pharm, M. Pharm, D. Pharm, and Pharm. D programs.
The PCI had invited applications from new institutions seeking approval for starting Pharmacy courses by a Circular dated July 3, 2022. In response to this circular, the petitioner submitted an application, on a Standard Inspection Form (SIF), on August 5, 2022 seeking approval for conducting B. Pharm and D. Pharm courses with intake of 60 students in each course.
The SIF required the applicant to state the year of “Starting of Course (Academic Session)”. The petitioner entered 2022-2023 as the relevant year, under the said column, for each of the courses. The petitioner also deposited the requisite PERC for running these courses.
Despite this, there was a delay in processing the petitioner’s application, which resulted in the petitioner approaching the Delhi High Court on multiple occasions. In light of this, the Court also contemplated initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against PCI.
Ultimately, the PCI granted approval to the petitioner by a communication dated November 29, 2023, to
conduct the B Pharm and D Pharm courses with 60 students’ intake in each case. However, this approval was restricted to one year, i.e. 2023-2024.
Consequently, on grant of approval, the petitioner applied to its affiliating body, and obtained affiliation for running the B Pharm and D Pharm courses. Owing to the delay in grant of approval, the petitioner could admit only 57 students in its D Pharm program and 18 students in its B Pharm program.
Key Issue Considered
Does the PCI have the authority to require yearly applications for “continuation of approval” for B. Pharm and D. Pharm courses, and can they charge fees Pharmacy Education Regulatory Charges (PERC) for such applications?
Arguments Advanced
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that section 12(1) Pharmacy Act, 1948 grants approval to the entire course of study, not individual years. They stated that approval, once granted, should be valid until withdrawn under Section 13 of the Act. They further propounded that the concept of “continuation of approval” is not supported by the Act.
PCI’s Argument
Conversely, the PCI challenged this notion and argued that approval needs yearly renewal to ensure proper monitoring of institutions. Moreover, they advanced the argument that purposive interpretation of the Act allows for yearly continuation applications.
Judgment of the Court
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court observed that section 12(1) clearly refers to approval for the entire “course of study.” The terms “course” and “course of study” have the same meaning in this context. Additionally, existing PCI guidelines support the interpretation of approval for the entire course.
Moreover, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 already has provisions for monitoring institutions in terms of sections 12(3) and 16.
Hence, the Delhi High Court declared that yearly continuation applications and PERC charges are not authorized by the Act.
