Supreme Court Rules on Pharmacy College Admission Dispute: AICTE vs PCI Jurisdiction

The case of Shirpur Education Society vs. State of Maharashtra & Others was a landmark ruling addressing the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies in technical education, particularly in pharmacy courses. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) or PCI (Pharmacy Council of India) held the authority to regulate intake capacity in pharmacy colleges. The ruling impacted numerous educational institutions that faced conflicts between AICTE’s approval process and PCI’s intake restrictions.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Shirpur Education Society, established the RC Patel Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research in 1992 after securing approvals from AICTE, PCI, the Government of Maharashtra, and North Maharashtra University. Over the years, the intake capacity increased from 30 students in 1992 to 60 in 2001, and then to 180 students in 2010, with an additional intake of 60 students in the second shift, making a total of 240.

The dispute began when the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra, attempted to reduce the intake capacity of the college, citing PCI regulations that capped undergraduate pharmacy courses at 100 students per year and did not permit a second shift. AICTE, however, had granted approvals for the increased intake. The conflicting regulations led to legal disputes, with the college obtaining interim relief from the Bombay High Court for multiple academic years, allowing it to admit students beyond PCI’s limits.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The appellant, Shirpur Education Society, made the following arguments:

AICTE had consistently approved an intake of 240 students, and the PCI’s restriction to 100 students had no statutory backing.
The institution had been admitting students based on AICTE approvals for nearly a decade.
Students admitted in previous years must be recognized and allowed to register as pharmacists.
The sudden enforcement of PCI’s restrictions, without prior notice, caused financial and operational difficulties for the institution.
The second shift was permitted under AICTE regulations, and AICTE had the jurisdiction to regulate technical education.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and PCI, countered with the following arguments:

PCI had the sole authority to regulate pharmacy education under the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
AICTE’s approval process could not override PCI’s intake restrictions.
A public notice issued in 2010 had clarified that pharmacy courses could not have a second shift and that intake must be capped at 100 students.
Students admitted beyond PCI’s prescribed intake would not be registered as pharmacists, affecting their careers.

High Court Ruling

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of PCI, upholding the intake restriction. The Court noted that AICTE’s approval process had been modified, and its 2018 handbook reflected compliance with PCI’s norms. It concluded that the college could not admit students beyond PCI’s limit and dismissed the institution’s plea.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and acknowledged the jurisdictional conflict between AICTE and PCI. The Court noted:

“The controversy before this court appears to have arisen on account of the conflicting claims to primacy made by PCI on the one hand and AICTE on the other. While the PCI regulates professional standards, AICTE oversees technical education.”

The Court emphasized the need for regulatory clarity and observed that:

AICTE and PCI had reached an understanding in 2018 to work in coordination rather than in conflict.
The PCI’s regulatory authority over pharmacy education could not be ignored.
However, students already admitted in previous years under AICTE’s approval should not suffer.
The admissions made before 2019 should be recognized, and affected students should be allowed to register as pharmacists.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to several key rulings:

Pharmacy Council of India vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trust – Addressing regulatory powers of AICTE and PCI.
State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya – Defining the jurisdiction of professional councils.
AICTE vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan – Clarifying AICTE’s role in technical education.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

Students admitted up to the academic year 2018-19 under AICTE’s approval would be recognized.
PCI must allow registration of these students as pharmacists.
The college’s intake for 2019-20 and beyond would be restricted to 100 students per PCI regulations.
Second-shift admissions were disallowed.
The question of AICTE vs PCI’s jurisdiction over pharmacy education would be determined in a separate case.

This ruling provided relief to affected students while reinforcing the need for a unified regulatory approach. The decision clarified the primacy of PCI in pharmacy education while ensuring that past admissions under AICTE approvals were not invalidated.

Petitioner Name: Shirpur Education Society.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra & Others.
Judgment By: Justice R. F. Nariman, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 31-01-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Shirpur Education So vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category