Akshita College Of Pharmacy vs. Pharmacy Council Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, numerous pharmacy colleges, challenged a communication dated December 14, 2023, issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). This communication, along with provisions in the Approval Handbook, mandated that approved institutions must obtain yearly continuation of their approvals under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. This requirement also entailed paying a fee, referred to as PERC, on an annual basis. The petitioners argued that this yearly renewal and fee requirement was illegal and beyond the PCI's statutory powers. The PCI, as the respondent, contended that such yearly approvals were necessary for ensuring continued compliance with educational standards.

Held

The Court held that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) does not have the statutory power or authority to mandate yearly continuation of approval for pharmacy courses under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Court found that the approval granted under Section 12(1) pertains to the entire course of study and is valid unless withdrawn under Section 13. Consequently, the requirement for institutions to obtain yearly continuation of approval and to pay PERC annually, as stipulated in paragraphs 10(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the impugned circular dated December 14, 2023, and in the Approval Handbook, was quashed and set aside as being contrary to the Act and the Education Regulations. The Court also found the invocation of the principle of contemporanea expositio by the PCI to be misconceived. The only exception noted was for the M. Pharm course, which requires renewal after five years as per specific regulations. The Court directed the return of any amounts deposited by the petitioners as PERC within four weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has the legal authority under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, to mandate yearly continuation of approval for pharmacy courses, and consequently, to demand annual payment of PERC. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, grants approval for the entire course of study, not on a yearly basis. They argued that the PCI's decision to require yearly continuation of approval and the demand for annual PERC were ultra vires the Act and the Education Regulations. They further argued that the principle of contemporanea expositio was misapplied by the PCI, as there was no evidence of contemporaneous understanding by the framers of the Act restricting approval to a yearly basis. Respondent's arguments: The Pharmacy Council of India argued that the yearly continuation of approval was necessary to ensure that institutions consistently met the prescribed educational standards. They relied on the principle of contemporanea expositio to support their interpretation of the Act.