Ramchander Memorial College Of Pharmacy vs. Pharmacy Council Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, numerous pharmacy colleges, filed writ petitions challenging 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. The petitioners also challenged the consequent demand for payment of PERC (Pharmacy Education Regulatory Charges) on an annual basis. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the approval process for pharmacy courses and the PCI's authority to impose annual renewal requirements and fees.

Held

The Court held that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) does not have the authority to mandate yearly continuation of approval for pharmacy courses granted under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Court found that the approval granted under Section 12(1) is for the entire course of study and not on a yearly basis. Consequently, the provisions in the impugned communication dated December 14, 2023, and the Approval Handbook requiring yearly continuation of approval were quashed and set aside as being contrary to the Act and Education Regulations. The Court also held that the demand for annual payment of PERC was unsustainable as it was predicated on the illegal requirement of yearly continuation. The Court declared that approval, once granted, applies to the entire course of study, subject to withdrawal under Section 13, and the PCI cannot demand yearly continuation or annual PERC payments, except for the M. Pharm course which requires renewal after 5 years as per specific regulations. The writ petitions were allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has the legal authority to mandate yearly continuation of approval for pharmacy courses granted under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and related Education Regulations? 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 decision to require yearly continuation and charge PERC annually is contrary to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the 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 granted under Section 12(1) was intended to be on a yearly basis, and that the demand for PERC was a necessary charge for the regulatory oversight provided by the Council.