Regulation of Pharmacy Education: Supreme Court Rules PCI Prevails Over AICTE
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment on March 5, 2020, settled the long-standing dispute between the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) over the regulation of pharmacy education. The Court ruled that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, being a special law, will prevail over the AICTE Act, 1987, and that the PCI has exclusive jurisdiction in matters related to pharmacy education, including approvals, regulations, and standards for pharmacy courses and institutions.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose due to conflicting regulations issued by PCI and AICTE regarding the approval of pharmacy courses, intake capacities, and institutional standards. Several educational institutions had obtained approvals from AICTE for increased student intake without the necessary approval from PCI, leading to legal challenges and contradictory rulings from various High Courts.
Legal Proceedings
Pharmacy Council of India’s Arguments
- PCI contended that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, is a comprehensive law governing pharmacy education and professional practice in India.
- It argued that pharmacy is a specialized subject, and the Pharmacy Act is a complete code that lays down the minimum educational standards and regulates the profession.
- PCI pointed out that under the Pharmacy Act, it has the sole authority to approve courses, institutions, and student intake capacities.
- It further asserted that AICTE’s inclusion of “pharmacy” under the definition of “technical education” in the AICTE Act, 1987, does not grant AICTE jurisdiction over pharmacy education.
All India Council for Technical Education’s Arguments
- AICTE argued that it was established to ensure coordinated development of technical education in India, and pharmacy falls under the definition of “technical education” in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.
- AICTE claimed that its regulatory authority extends to all technical institutions, including pharmacy colleges, and that it has the power to approve new institutions, courses, and variations in intake.
- It contended that the AICTE Act, being a later law, supersedes the Pharmacy Act in cases of conflict.
- AICTE further emphasized that the National Policy on Education recognized its role in setting and maintaining technical education standards.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the legal framework and legislative intent behind both Acts and made several key observations:
1. The Pharmacy Act is a Special Law
The Court reaffirmed that the Pharmacy Act is a special law dealing exclusively with pharmacy education and professional regulation. It is a self-contained code that governs all aspects of pharmacy education, from course approval to professional practice.
2. AICTE Act is a General Law
The AICTE Act, on the other hand, is a general law that governs technical education in India. While it covers a broad range of disciplines, it does not override specialized laws such as the Pharmacy Act.
3. PCI Has Exclusive Authority Over Pharmacy Education
The Court held that PCI alone has the power to regulate pharmacy education, including setting educational standards, approving institutions, and determining student intake capacities.
4. AICTE Cannot Override PCI Regulations
The judgment clarified that AICTE does not have jurisdiction over pharmacy institutions, and any approvals granted by AICTE without PCI’s approval are not valid.
5. No Implied Repeal of the Pharmacy Act
The Court rejected AICTE’s argument that the AICTE Act impliedly repealed the Pharmacy Act. It reiterated that a special law cannot be overridden by a general law unless explicitly stated.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PCI, holding that:
“In the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail.”
The Court directed that all pharmacy institutions must comply with PCI regulations, and any increase in student intake or course approvals must be granted solely by PCI.
Petitioner Name: Pharmacy Council of India.Respondent Name: Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors..Judgment By: Justice M. R. Shah.Place Of Incident: India.Judgment Date: 05-03-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Pharmacy Council of vs Dr. S.K. Toshniwal E Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-03-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
