College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 20 July, 2026

July 28, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 20 July, 2026

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of the letter of permanent
approval with QR-Code under Section 12 (1) of Pharmacy Act, 1948 in
respect of Pharmacy Courses already approved by Pharmacy Council of
India (“PCI”).

SPONSORED

2. It is submitted by counsels appearing for petitioners that a Co-
ordinate bench of this court vide its judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in
W.P. (C) No. 617 of 2024 and connected matters has held that requirement
of yearly continuation of approval granted under section 12 (1) of Pharmacy
Act, 1948 is illegal and without authority of law. It is further submitted that
PCI filed intra court appeal in LPA No. 614/2024 which was dismissed by

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18
the Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2026. It is
also submitted that PCI has filed SLP (C) (D.No.36158/2026) before the
Honb’le Supreme Court of India. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
vide its order dated 17.06.2026 has declined prayer for an Interim Stay in the
matter.

3. Mr. Uppal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Singh, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for PCI doesn’t dispute the aforesaid factual
position. However, he contends that any permanent approval to be issued by
PCI should be made subject to the outcome of SLP pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties.

5. This court vide its judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 617/2024 and connected matters considered the scheme of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 and while allowing the batch of the said writ petition
held as under:-

“107. The Court cannot, therefore, upheld the impugned
decision to call on institutions, such as the petitioners, to
obtain continuation of approvals granted to them on an yearly
basis by applying the principle of contemporanea expositio.
XVIII. The further sequitur

108. As a result, paras 10(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the impugned
Circular dated 14 December 2023 are clearly contrary to the
Act and the Education Regulations. The decision, as reflected
therein, to require approved institutions to obtain yearly
continuation of approval, cannot therefore sustain legal
scrutiny and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18
XIX. Re. demand for PERC

109. As I have found the requirement of yearly continuation of
the approval granted under Section 12(1) of the Act to be
illegal and without authority of law, there can be no question
of any institution having to pay PERC repeatedly at the end of
every year. The said demand has also, therefore, to fail.
Conclusion

110. In view of the aforesaid discussion, paras 10(ii), (iii) and

(iv) of the impugned communication dated 14 December 2023,
as well as the provisions to that effect as contained in the
Approval Handbook, are quashed and set aside.

111. It is hereby declared that the approval granted to the
course of study conducted by an institution under Section
12(1) is to the entire course of study and not to any one year
thereof

112. Such approval, once granted, is to apply, subject it is
being liable to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 13.

The PCI has no power or authority to call on any institution to
obtain continuation of the approval granted under Section
12(1) every year, nor can the PCI require the Institution to pay
PERC on an yearly basis to obtain continuation of the
approval granted to the courses under Section 12 (1).

113. The only exception is in the case of the M.Pharm course,
for which the approval would have to be renewed after 5
years, as required by the M.Pharm Regulations.”

6. Further, PCI filed intra court appeal being LPA No.614/2024 which

This is a digitally signed order.

“32. We may also note and observe that the submission made
on behalf of appellant-PCI that “Course” refers to each
individual B.Pharm/D.Pharm Course is not in conformity with
the plain language occurring in Section 12(1) but is also
opposed to the provisions of Regulations, 2014. regulation,
2014 describes B.Pharm to consist of a certificate having
passed the course of study and examination as prescribed in
the regulations for the purpose of registration as a pharmacist
to practice the profession under the Act, 1948. Similar
provisions exist in M.Pharm/D.Pharm Regulations. Having
regard to these regulations, the certificates leading to award
of degree/diploma – B.Pharm/M.Pharm/D.Pharm are issued
only after a student completes and clears the entire
B.Pharm/M.Pharm/D.Pharm Course and therefore, a “Course
of Study” will be the entire B.Pharm/M.Pharm/D.Pharm
Course and not any particular year thereof. What is noticeable
here is that in Regulation 2 of Regulations, 2014 the only
phrase which occurs there is “Course of Study”. Regulation 3
only speaks about the duration of the course, according to
which the duration of the B.Pharm Course shall be four
academic years, with each academic year spread over a
period of not less than 200 working days for the annual
pattern of 100 working days for each semester.

33. Thus, the submissions relating to interpretation sought to

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18
be given by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-PCI
to Section 12 (1), distinguishing “Course of Study” and
“Course” in our opinion, is not tenable for the reason that
“Course of Study” and “Course” have been used in the
relevant provisions interchangeably.

34. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant-PCI is
that if the PCI is not permitted to grant approval on an annual
basis and the requirement of seeking continuous approval by
the existing Pharmacy Institutions is dispensed with, the same
will result in the extinction of the power of PCI to monitor
institutions providing pharmacy courses to examine whether it
continues to subscribe to the standards which it is required to
maintain. Such submission, in our opinion is misconceived.
The power of the PCI to monitor Pharmacy Institutions is not
in any way hampered. In this regard, reference to Section
12(3) has rightly been made by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment wherein the Pharmacy Institutions have
been required to furnish such information as the PCI may
require from time to time. The learned Single Judge has rightly
observed in the impugned judgment that such power conferred
by Section 12(3) is without any restriction, and if the PCI so
chooses, it can even call upon an institution to provide the
requisite data regarding its functioning at regular intervals.

35. It is also to be noticed that the power of inspection of a
Pharmacy Institution is also available which has been vested
in the Executive Committee of the appellant-PCI under Section

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18
16 of the Act, 1948, that empowers the PCI to inspect any
institution that runs an approved “Course of Study”. Under
this provision, the inspectors, on inspecting the Pharmacy
Institutions, are required to submit a report to the Executive
Committee along with the comments of the Institutions, if any,
which are forwarded to the Government of the State in which
the Institute is situated, as also to the Central Government.
Therefore, in our opinion, the Act, 1948, contains adequate
provisions to monitor the progress of an institution that has
been accorded approval to a course under Section 12(1) of the
Act, 1948 and hence, maintenance of standards can
appropriately be monitored.

36. We may also note the provisions of Section 13 of the Act,
1948, which permits withdrawal of approval accorded to a
Pharmacy Institution under Section 12(1) in a situation where
the Executive Committee of the PCI reports to its Central
Council that an approved course of study does not continue to
be in conformity with the Regulations, 2014. The Central
Council under Section 13 has been vested with adequate
authority to consider the question of withdrawal of the
declaration of approval accorded to the “Course of Study”.

37. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the
provisions of Section 15 of the Act, 1948, which provides for
the mode of declaration, according to which all declarations
under Sections 12, 13 or 14 are to be made by a resolution
passed in a meeting of the Central Council of the appellant-

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18
PCI, and they shall have effect only on their publication in the
Official Gazette. The learned Single Judge has also opined
that publication in the Official Gazette in itself is an indicator
that the approval which is granted to a “Course of Study” is as
a whole and not to every year of “Course of Study”. The
reason given by the learned Single Judge for such a
conclusion is that Section 15 cannot be read as envisaging
every year publication in the Official Gazette of the approval
of the “Course of Study” conducted by a Pharmacy Institution.

38. The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded a finding
that declaration under Section 12(1) declaring a “Course of
Study” conducted by an institution to be an approved “Course
of Study” for the purposes of admission to an approved
examination for pharmacists is to be officially gazetted under
Section 15 and therefore, what would be gazetted by the
Central Council of PCI is a declaration that a course
conducted by a Pharmacy Institution is an approved “Course
of Study” enabling students undertaking the “Course of Study”

to be admitted to an approved examination for pharmacist.
The learned Single Judge has thus found that a gazette
declaration is required to be with respect to the entire course
of study. We are in agreement with such finding, having
regard to the nature of declaration required to be gazetted
under Section 15 of the Act, 1948 and also considering the fact
that declaration of approval of “Course of Study” is made only
on the satisfaction of the Central Council of the appellant-PCI,

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18
that too after an inquiry that the “Course of Study” is in
conformity with the Regulations, 2014.

39. The argument made by learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant- PCI based on the objects of the Act, 1948, has
appropriately been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment, according to which the Statement of
Objects and Reasons does not contain anything which can
justify the appellant-PCI requiring the existing Pharmacy
Institutions to obtain yearly continuation of approval. We may
also note that the submission on behalf of the appellant-PCI to
defend the provisions which are under challenge before the
learned Single Judge in the writ petitions, based on the
principle “Contemporaneous Expositio”, has also been
appropriately considered and answered by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment.

40. The learned Single Judge has concluded that such a
principle applies to very old statutes where the intention of the
framers of the statutes can be a factor at the point of time
when such statutes were framed for the purposes of
interpreting them. The learned Single Judge has, however,
rightly concluded that this doctrine cannot be invoked to
support the manner in which the authority implementing the
statute chooses to interpret it. The learned Single Judge has
also opined that this principle does not have application where
the statute is unambiguous and does not admit more than one
meaning.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18

41. We may also add in this regard that the learned Senior
Counsel representing the respondent-Colleges has also
brought on record certain documents which are decisions
relating to approval granted by the appellant PCI from the
year 1986 to 2020, which do not reflect the concept of
granting approval on a year-to-year basis. The learned Single
Judge has also noticed that no records have been placed in
evidence by the appellant-PCI to support that it has been the
past practice of the PCI to accord approval to a “Course of
Study” on a year-to-year basis. In this view of the matter as
well, the doctrine of “Contemporaneous Expositio” for the
purpose of interpreting Section 12 (1) of the Act, 1948, does
not lend any support to the submissions made on behalf of
appellant-PCI.

42. So far as the judgments cited by the parties in support of
their respective submissions are concerned, the same have, in
our opinion, been appropriately discussed by the learned ingle
Judge in the impugned judgment, and we do not find any good
ground to take a view different from the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.”

7. Being aggrieved, of the aforesaid decision, , PCI filed SLP (C) D.
No.31658/2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated
17.06.2026 has declined the prayer for interim stay. Thus, in my view,
petitioners, which are existing and approved pharmacy institutions are
entitled for “permanent approval” under Section 12 (1) of the Pharmacy Act
1948.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18

8. Accordingly, PCI is directed to issue letter of “Permanent approval”

with QR-Code in respect of existing approved Pharmacy Courses with duly
approved initial intake within a period of 2 weeks from today, subject to
outcome of pending SLP before Supreme Court. The respondent is also
directed to update its website and reflect the status of petitioners, as
institutions duly approved under section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

9. In view of above, present writ petitions alongwith pending
applications, if any, are disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 20, 2026 / (MS)

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:16:18

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 20 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders