Source:
https://medicaldialogues.in/news/pharma/pharmacy-council-will-approve-pharmacy-courses-not-aicte-supreme-court-63766
https://medicaldialogues.in/news/pharma/pharmacy-council-will-approve-pharmacy-courses-not-aicte-supreme-court-63766
The Supreme Court of India has recently made a landmark observation over
the statutory authority of Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) when it comes to
matters related to pharmacy.
The bench of Honourable Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and MR Shah
held that only Pharmacy Act 1948 will be applicable in relation to the subject
of Pharmacy, including approval of courses of study, minimum standards of
education required for qualification as a Pharmacist, registration as a
Pharmacist, regulation of future professional conduct etc; not any other
authority.
The SC was approached to intervene in the conflict over restrictions
imposed by the PCI on the intake of students to various Pharmaceutical courses.
Many colleges had moved the various High Courts against these
restrictions. Since the Colleges increased the intake of students, based upon
the requisite approval obtained from the All India Council of Technical
Education (AICTE), the High Courts had allowed the colleges to continue with the
increase in intake.
In their decision, the Courts had concluded that AICTE is the supreme
authority between the two bodies, namely, AICTE and PCI and the decision of
AICTE will prevail over the decision of PCI. Following the same, the present
appeal was filed by the PCI before the apex court against these High Courts'
orders.
During the hearing, the question that arose before the SC bench was
whether the mandate of the PCI or that of the AICTE would prevail on the
question of granting approval and related matters to any institution for
conducting pharmacy education course, if there were any conflict/contradictions
in the opinions of these two bodies. The issue was as to which body, i.e. AICTE
or PCI would primarily be responsible for regulation of pharmaceutical
regulation in India.
In its observation, the bench went over to contemplate on the certain
sections of the Pharmacy Act 1948 as well as the AICTE.
Considering the various provisions of the Pharmacy Act and its
regulations, it was stated that the Pharmacy Act is a complete Code in itself
in the subject of pharmacy, the bench noted adding that the PCI has been
constituted as a body empowered to regulate the education and profession of pharmacy
in India.
On the other
hand, the bench reckoned the AICTE Act as a general law applicable to the
technical institutions and technical education. The preamble for AICTE clearly
mentions:
Noting that as per the Section 2(g)
of the AICTE Act, "technical education" also means
"pharmacy", the court wondered whether in the field of pharmacy, the
Pharmacy Act would prevail or the AICTE Act? The next question was whether in
the profession of pharmacy, the PCI shall have the exclusive jurisdiction or
the AICTE?
To decide on the issue, the apex court judges relied on its earlier
verdicts where the Supreme Court had considered the conflict between the
general legislation and the special legislation and argument of 'implied
repeal'.
In these
backdrops, the apex court observed:
Taking the constitutional body of PCI and the AICTE into account, the
judges stated:
PCI is the body of experts connected with the subject of pharmacy and
related subjects and therefore it will be in the larger interest and more
particularly in the interest of education of pharmacy that PCI shall alone have
the Jurisdiction in the field of pharmacy, rather than AICTE.
On the issue of supremacy, the bench held that the fight of supremacy
between both the regulators is unhealthy for the education sector as well as
the institutions to permit two regulators to function in the same field.
Therefore also and more particularly when the PCI is consisting of the experts
in the field of pharmacy and other related subjects, it is in the larger
interest in the field of pharmacy that the PCI must be given the power to
regulate in the field of pharmacy.
The court went on to observe that conflict and the dispute arose because
despite refusal by the PCI, the AICTE increased the intake capacity in the
respective institutions, which were not approved by the PCI. For the sake of
students, the bench the present decision shall not affect those students
admitted in the increased intake capacity and/or pursuant to the interim orders
passed by this Court and/or final judgments and orders passed by the respective
High Courts.
Attached is the detailed judgment below:
