I E T College Of Pharmacy vs. Pharmacy Council Of INDIA

Facts

Numerous pharmacy colleges, including SLS College of Pharmacy (petitioner in WP(C) 617/2024), filed writ petitions challenging a communication dated December 14, 2023, issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). The communication, along with provisions in the Approval Handbook, mandated that institutions approved under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, must obtain yearly continuation of their approvals. This required them to pay a fee, referred to as PERC (Pharmacy Education Regulatory Charges), annually. The petitioners argued that this yearly renewal requirement and the associated fee were illegal and beyond the powers of the PCI.

Held

The Court held that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) does not have the power or authority to mandate yearly continuation of approvals granted 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 not to any specific year. Consequently, the requirement for institutions to obtain yearly continuation of approval and to pay PERC on an annual basis was deemed illegal and without authority of law. The Court quashed and set aside paragraphs 10(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the impugned communication dated December 14, 2023, and similar provisions in the Approval Handbook. The Court declared that such approval, once granted, is valid for the entire course, subject to withdrawal under Section 13, with the sole exception being the M. Pharm course, which requires renewal after five years as per specific regulations. Any amounts deposited by petitioners as per court orders were to be returned within four weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has the legal authority to mandate yearly continuation of approvals granted under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, for pharmacy courses? 2. Whether the demand for annual payment of PERC for continuation of approval is legally sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the approval granted under Section 12(1) is for the entire course of study and not on a yearly basis. They argued that the PCI's actions were contrary to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Education Regulations. They further argued that the principle of contemporanea expositio, relied upon by the PCI, was misapplied as there was no evidence of contemporaneous understanding by the framers of the Act restricting approval to a yearly basis. They asserted that the impugned communication and the Approval Handbook provisions requiring yearly continuation and payment of PERC were illegal and liable to be quashed. Revenue/State's arguments: The Pharmacy Council of India argued that the yearly continuation of approvals was a necessary measure and relied on the principle of contemporanea expositio to support its interpretation of the Act. No other arguments for the respondent were recorded.