Supreme Court Directs University to Grant Affiliation to Pharmacy Colleges: A Case on Educational Rights

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in VIIT Pharmacy College v. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, addressing the issue of university affiliation for pharmacy colleges. This case highlights the role of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the legal obligations of universities in granting affiliation when statutory requirements are met.

Background of the Case

The case arose when VIIT Pharmacy College and RV Institute of Pharmacy applied for affiliation with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University (the respondent university) for the academic year 2020-21. While both institutions had received approval from the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to run the B. Pharma course, the university rejected their applications, citing a state government policy that restricted the number of pharmacy colleges to two per district.

The petitioners challenged the state’s policy before the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the restriction, allowing them to apply for affiliation. Despite this, the university refused to grant affiliation, prompting the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Raised

Whether a university can deny affiliation to pharmacy colleges that have received approval from the PCI.
Whether the university’s refusal to grant affiliation violated the students’ right to education.
Whether the state government’s policy restricting the number of pharmacy colleges per district was legally valid.

Arguments by the Petitioners (VIIT Pharmacy College & RV Institute of Pharmacy)

“The Pharmacy Act, 1948, which governs pharmacy education, grants exclusive authority to the PCI to regulate and approve pharmacy colleges. The university must follow the PCI’s decisions.”
“The state government’s policy restricting the number of pharmacy colleges per district was already set aside by the Allahabad High Court. Despite this, the university refused to grant affiliation, which is arbitrary and illegal.”
“Students of our colleges were not allowed to appear in examinations despite enrolling in the academic year, causing significant academic loss.”

Arguments by the Respondents (Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University)

“University affiliation involves additional criteria beyond PCI approval, and we have the discretion to ensure that institutions meet state guidelines.”
“The state’s restriction on pharmacy colleges aimed to maintain quality education and prevent unregulated expansion of pharmacy institutions.”
“The university must consider factors beyond PCI approval before granting affiliation, including state educational policies.”

Supreme Court’s Observations on Educational Rights

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the supremacy of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 over state policies in matters of pharmacy education. The Court made the following key observations:

“In the field of pharmacy education, the norms and regulations set by the PCI must be followed by all institutions, including universities.”
“Once a college has received PCI approval, the university cannot deny affiliation unless there is a clear legal reason.”
“The state’s policy limiting pharmacy colleges per district was already invalidated by the High Court, and the university’s refusal to grant affiliation on these grounds was unjustified.”
“Educational institutions cannot be arbitrarily denied affiliation, as it directly affects students’ right to education.”

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and issued the following directions:

The university must grant affiliation to the petitioners for the academic year 2020-21.
The university must organize special examinations for the students of the petitioners’ colleges, as they were unfairly prevented from appearing in regular exams.
The university must follow PCI’s regulations and cannot impose additional restrictions that are inconsistent with the Pharmacy Act.
The petitioners’ colleges must be allowed to continue offering the B. Pharma course as per PCI’s approval.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

PCI’s authority is paramount: The judgment reaffirmed that the PCI is the sole regulatory body for pharmacy education and its approval must be respected.
Universities cannot arbitrarily deny affiliation: Once statutory approval is granted by the PCI, universities must comply unless there are legally valid reasons for rejection.
Right to education protected: The Court ensured that students were not unfairly deprived of their academic year due to administrative decisions.
State policies cannot override central regulations: The Court struck down the state government’s attempt to impose additional restrictions beyond what the PCI had mandated.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in VIIT Pharmacy College v. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University is a significant victory for educational institutions and students alike. By reaffirming the authority of the Pharmacy Council of India and ensuring that universities comply with statutory requirements, the Court protected the right to education and ensured that students do not suffer due to bureaucratic delays and arbitrary decisions. This case serves as a reminder that regulatory bodies must work within the legal framework and that students’ futures cannot be compromised by administrative inefficiencies.

Petitioner Name: VIIT Pharmacy College & RV Institute of Pharmacy.
Respondent Name: Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University & Another.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 15-04-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: viit-pharmacy-colleg-vs-dr.-a.p.j.-abdul-kal-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-04-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category