Gahlaut Pharmacy College 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 and pay a fee, referred to as PERC, annually. The petitioners argued that this requirement was contrary to the existing legal framework governing their approvals. The dispute centers on the interpretation of the approval process and the PCI's authority to impose annual renewal requirements and fees.

Held

The Court held that the requirement of yearly continuation of approval, as mandated by paragraphs 10(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the impugned circular dated December 14, 2023, and provisions to that effect in the Approval Handbook, were contrary to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Education Regulations. The Court found that the approval granted under Section 12(1) is for the entire course of study and not for any single year. Consequently, the PCI has no power or authority to demand yearly continuation of approval or annual payment of PERC for such continuation. The Court noted that the only exception is for M. Pharm courses, which require renewal after five years as per specific regulations. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned paragraphs of the circular and related provisions in the Approval Handbook. Any amounts deposited by the petitioners towards PERC were ordered to be returned 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 if so, whether this requirement is consistent with the Act and Education Regulations. 2. Whether the PCI can legally demand annual payment of PERC for continuation of approval. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that 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 decision to require annual continuation of approval and the demand for PERC were not supported by the Pharmacy Act, 1948, or the relevant Education Regulations. They also argued that the principle of contemporanea expositio, invoked by the respondent, was misapplied 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 approval process inherently involved yearly scrutiny and continuation, invoking the principle of contemporanea expositio to support their interpretation of the Act. They also relied on the Approval Handbook.