Delhi High Court – Orders
Spark College Of Pharmacy (Pci-3020) vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 13 April, 2026
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~5, 58-61, 67 & 77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4467/2026
SPARK COLLEGE OF PHARMACY (PCI-3020)
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Brijendra Singh, Adv.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
58
+ W.P.(C) 2621/2026&CM APPL. 12754/2026
SRLT INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY AND MANAGEMENT
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Chandrashekhar Singh, Mr.
AyushAanand, Advs.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
59
+ W.P.(C) 3166/2026&CM APPL. 15263/2026
INDU PRAKASH PHARMACY COLLEGE
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Ravi Knat,
Mr. Vineet Upadhyay & Mr.
AyushAanand, Advs.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
60
+ W.P.(C) 3355/2026&CM APPL. 16154/2026
JAINATH MEMORIAL PHARMACY COLLEGE.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Ravi Knat,
Mr. Vineet Upadhyay & Mr.
AyushAanand, Advs.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
61
+ W.P.(C) 3356/2026&CM APPL. 16155/2026
CROSS BELLY INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Ravi Knat,
Mr. Vineet Upadhyay & Mr.
AyushAanand, Advs.
Mr. Sanjay Sherawat, Sr. Adv.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
67
+ W.P.(C) 4054/2026
CITY SCHOOL OF PHARMACY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms.Tanupreet
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
Kaur, Ms.Medha Sharma, Ms.
Simran Kunari, Ms. Pooja, Mr.
Gaurav, Advs.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
77
+ W.P.(C) 4822/2026
JIVIKA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Mallika Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya
Singh, Mr. Ilesh Shukla, Mr. Chetan
Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kaushik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 13.04.2026
W.P.(C) 2621/2026
1. This is a petitionfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following reliefs:
“a) writ of certiorari for quashing of decision letter dated
22.01.2026 issued by the Respondent, to the extent of it
rejecting the approval to Petitioner Institution for B-Pharm
course for the present Academic Session 2026-27, in an
Arbitrary, Illegal & Contemptuous Manner; and
b) writ of mandamus for direction to Respondent, to process
the application of the Petitioner Institution de-hors theThis 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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
requirement of Consent of Affiliation / No Objection
Certificate from Affiliating University, and consequently
process the application and grant approval to Petitioner
Institution for the applied B. Pharm Course for the present
Academic Session 2026-27; in terms of order dated
08.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
2. The brief facts in the present case are that the respondent has been
established under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (“the Act”) to regulate the field of
pharmacy education, institution and courses in the country.
3. The affiliating university in the present case is Dr.Abdul Kalam
Technical University (“AKTU”) established under Uttar Pradesh Technical
University Act, 2000.
4. The petitioner is a pharmacy institution sponsored by its society
namely Shri Tirupati Shiksha Prasar Samiti and is duly approved by the
respondent to run D Pharm Course admittedly since 2019-20.
5. The respondent vide circular dated 17.12.2024 invited applications
from institution for extension of approval for existing pharmacy courses and
for granting fresh approval for other courses as well as approval of other
institutions.
6. The petitioner institutionapplied for extension of existing D Pharm
Course and fresh approval of proposed B Pharm Course. The same has been
rejected by the respondent in the impugned decision letter dated 22.01.2026.
The primary reasons for rejection in the impugned order is as under:-
a) Non-Submission of the Consent of Affiliation
(“COA”) of the examining authority for 2026-27
academic session for the said pharmacy courses.
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
b) Non-Submission of the No Objection
Certificate(“NOC”) of State Government for the said
courses.
7. Hence, the present petition.
8. Mr. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent
states that in terms of Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Pharmacy Act of 1948, the
respondent has framed regulations for granting the approval to the colleges
and he more particularly places reliance on Regulation 9 reads as under:-
“9. Approval of the authority conducting the course of study-
1. No person, institution, society, trust or university shall
start and conduct B. Pharm programme without the prior
approval of the Pharmacy Council of India.
2. Any person or pharmacy college for the purpose of
obtaining permission under sub-section (1) of section 12
of the Pharmacy Act, shall submit a scheme as may be
prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India.
3. The scheme referred to in sub-regulation (2) above, shall
be in such form and contain such particulars and be
preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such
fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the Pharmacy
Council of India shall not approve any institution under
these regulations unless it provides adequate
arrangements for teaching in regard to building,
accommodation, labs., equipments, teaching staff,
non-teaching staff, etc., as specified in Appendix-A to
these regulations.”
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
9. He further draws my attention to the Scheme framed under regulation 9
for the academic session 2026-27
2026 27 and more particularly clause No. 4, which
reads as under:-
10. He states that the COA of examining authority is a pre
pre-requisite before
the respondent can consider the application for grant of approval for fresh
courses. Additionally, as regards the NOC is concerned, it is only in the cases
where the State Government has done away with the issuance of NOC on
uploading of the said application, the requirement of NOC can be dispensed
with for grant of approval for fresh courses/extension of the existing courses.
11. He further states that
that it is admitted that the State Government has done
away with the NOC and it is only the COA of the examining authority which
the petitioners have failed to comply with.
12. He draws my attention to a response of 10.11.2025 to the letter of the
university of examining authority/affiliating university AKTU of 01.11.2025,
wherein the response reads as under:-
under:
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
“Speed Post + email
Ref. 17-137/2025/Part-1 (Lead File Uttar Pradesh)INSP-12036/8/2025-INSPINSP-12036/8/2025-INSP
To
The Principal Secretary The Registrar
Technical Education Dr APJ Abdul Kalam
Section-1 Technical University
Govt. of Uttar Pradesh Institute of Engineering
Uttar Pradesh and Technology
Email: Campus Sitapur Road
[email protected] Lucknow (Uttar
[email protected] Pradesh)
Email:
Subject: Inviting kind attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment in Pharmacy Council of India vs S.K. Toshniwal
Educational Trust‘s Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy & Ors. –
reaffirming the supremacy of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the
apex regulatory role of PCI in pharmacy education.
Ref: 1. Letter No. AKTU/KU S KA /2025/9144 dt.1.11.2025
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
received from AKTU.
2. Letter No.1/1129089/2025/16-1099/21/2025 dt.31.10.2025
from U.P. Govt.
Sir,
This is in reference to above cited letters. It is informed that the
Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), constituted under the Pharmacy
Act, 1948, is the statutory body entrusted with regulating the
standards of pharmacy education and profession across the
country. Your kind attention is invited to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pharmacy Council of India vs
S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trust‘s Vidarbha Institute of
Pharmacy & Ors., 2020 wherein the Court has held that the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 is a complete and self-contained code in itself
and that the Pharmacy Council of India is the sole and apex
authority empowered to regulate and prescribe norms for
pharmacy education in India.
It is respectfully submitted that the Pharmacy Council of India has
statutory authority to require specific documents as part of the
approval process for the Bachelor of Pharmacy (B. Pharm) course.
This authority emanates from Sections 10 and 18 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1948, under which the PCI has framed the B. Pharm
Regulations, 2014, prescribing the standards and procedures for
approval of institutions.
Under Regulation 9(2) of the said Regulations, the PCI has notified
a comprehensive Scheme for Approval of B. Pharm Course. As per
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
Scheme 3 of this framework, every applicant institution is required
to furnish:
1. No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the concerned State
Government, and
2. Consent of Affiliation issued by the Examining Authority (i.e., the
affiliating University/Board).
The PCI considers and grants approval for the course only upon
receipt of these statutory documents, which have been recognized
and upheld as mandatory prerequisites by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in several judgments, including PCI vs S.K. Toshniwal
Educational Trust.
It is, however, brought to the kind notice that, in complete defiance
of the statutory provisions enshrined under the Pharmacy Act,
1948 and the Regulations made thereunder, the Examining
Authority in the State has recently declined to issue the Consent of
Affiliation to certain institutions on the premise that there is no
specific Act or order of the State Government directing them to do
so. This position is inconsistent with the established legal
framework and contrary to the practice consistently followed over
the years, during which Consents of Affiliation were routinely
issued to eligible institutions in accordance with the statutory
process prescribed by the PCI. Such deviation, without any
amendment to the law or policy, is legally untenable and obstructs
the implementation of the provisions of a central enactment.
The requirement of Consent of Affiliation is not a matter of
administrative discretion but a statutory necessity flowing directly
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
from the B. Pharm Regulations, 2014, framed under Sections 10
and 18 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Examining Authority, being
an integral part of the statutory scheme, is duty-bound to issue such
consent once the prescribed conditions are satisfied. The refusal to
do so on the ground of absence of a separate directive from the
State Government effectively negates the operation of the
Pharmacy Act, which, being a central legislation, prevails over any
contrary administrative instruction or local practice. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K.
Toshniwal Educational Trusts & Ors., 2020, has unequivocally
affirmed that the Pharmacy Act is a self-contained code and that
the authority to regulate pharmacy education lies exclusively with
the PCI.
The continued refusal of the Examining Authority to issue the
Consent of Affiliation therefore contravenes the provisions of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Regulations framed thereunder,
creating uncertainty and hardship for institutions and students
alike. Such obstruction disrupts the statutory approval process,
causes confusion among stakeholders, and undermines the
uniformity and credibility of pharmacy education as envisaged
under the Act.
In view of the above, the Pharmacy Council of India humbly
requests to ensure that the statutory scheme under the Pharmacy
Act, 1948 and the B. Pharm Regulations, 2014 is implemented in
letter and spirit by all concerned authorities in the State. It is
earnestly requested that necessary directions may kindly be issued
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
to the Examining Authority to continue granting Consent of
Affiliation to eligible institutions in accordance with law and
established precedent, so that the interests of students and
institutions are safeguarded and the statutory mandate of the
Pharmacy Council of India, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, is faithfully observed.
The Council reiterates its commitment to maintaining the highest
standards of pharmacy education and deeply values the continued
support and cooperation of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in
furthering this objective.
In this connection, it is intimated that State Government and
Examining Authority had been issuing earlier the following letters
to Pharmacy courses:
1. Copies of No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued earlier by the
State Government to Pharmacy institution (Appendix-1).
2. Copies of Consent of Affiliation issued earlier by the Examining
Authority to Pharmacy (i.e., the affiliating University/Board).
(Appendix-2)
In view of above, you are requested to issue NOC of State Govt. /
consent of affiliation of Examining Authority to Pharmacy courses
so that PCI can process the application of institutions.
Yours faithfully
(Anil Mittal)
Registrar-cum-Secretary
Cc 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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
Dr. Montukumar M. Patel
Hon’ble President,
Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi
E-Mail – [email protected]”
13. He states that the COA is a requirement under the Pharmacy Council
Act and in the absence of the same, the respondent is correct in rejecting the
request of the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of
The Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts
Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors. etc. (2021) 10 SCC 657.
14. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
15. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the powers of
respondent and its rule making authority. The respondent is a statutory
authority for regulation and grant of all pharmacy courses in the country.
Additionally, the Pharmacy Council of India has the statutory authority to
mandate requirement of specific documents for granting approval in terms of
Section 10 and 18 of the Act. The above said judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha
Institute of Pharmacy (supra) further clarifies the same position.
16. In this view of the matter, there is no dispute with the requirement laid
down in the scheme under clause 4 framed by the respondent. However, the
issue at present is of its implementation.
17. In the present case, the petitioner’s institutions have repeatedly been
writing to the affiliating university regarding COA. The response of the
AKTU, the affiliating university, has been consistent and same and have been
reproduced from the letter of 01.11.2025. The operative portion reads as
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
under:-
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
18. The same has also been reiterated in the letter dated 04.02.2025 (which
is in my opinion wrongly dated and should be 04.02.2026). The paragraph
Nos. 3 and 4 read as under:-
under:
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
19. The letter of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 10.01.2026 is also
important in this regard and the relevant portion reads as under:-
“3. It is informed that in compliance with the provisions of
the aforesaid policy and Act, the process of No Objection
Certificate (NOC) of the State Government and Consent of
Affiliation given by the Examining Authority for granting
affiliation to new degree level engineering institutions in the
State, has been simplified, rationalized and abolished by the
State Government vide Government Order No. 1023323
dated 12 July 2025, to which AICTE has no objection. The
engineering institutions of the State and 281 the students
studying in them are benefiting from this decision of the Uttar
Pradesh Government.
4. Therefore, under the new system implemented by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, now as per the provisions of
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Act, 2000,
prior approval of the State Government is required to be
obtained before issuing affiliation letter by the University for
“starting new institutes and new courses”, so that the
Pharmacy Council of India can consider the applications at
its own level without waiting for the approval of the State
Government.
5. Apart from this, it is also to note that at point 4 (1) of the
Notification No.14-56/2024-PCI (Approval Process for
2025-26 as)/5080 dated 17.12.2024 issued by Pharmacy
Council of India, New Delhi, it has been provided withThis 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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
regard to applications for B. Pharma course that if the
system of issuing NOC by the State Government for starting
Pharmacy course is abolished, then in that case the institute
will upload the order of the State Government on the portal
as documentary evidence. 282 Therefore, you are requested
to take note of the afore mentioned Government Order and
new procedure of the State of U.P. and please take the further
action, accordingly.”
20. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs shows that the State of Uttar
Pradesh as well as the affiliating university have categorically stated that
there is no requirement of a COA of the examining authority as well as
anNOCof the State Government for grant/ extension of any course. That
being position of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the affiliating
university, the respondent insistence on providing the said documents by the
petitioner institution is meaningless. The petitioner institution is incapable
and is not in a position to provide these documents in view of a clear stand of
the university as well as the State that the documents are not required as a
pre-condition for grant of approval.
21. In this view of the matter and in view of the aforesaid factual position,
the petition is allowed and the impugned decision dated 22.01.2026 is
quashed. Thus, respondent is directed to process application of the petitioner
institution without insisting on the requirement of the aforesaid two
documents and in accordance with the timeline fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
22. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4467/2026, W.P.(C) 3166/2026, W.P.(C) 3355/2026, W.P.(C)
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17
3356/2026, W.P.(C) 4054/2026 & W.P.(C) 4822/2026
23. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking identical reliefs as W.P.(C)2621/2026 with respect to extension
of approval for existing pharmacy courses/ fresh approval of pharmacy
courses.
24. Since the matter has been heard in W.P.(C) 2621/2026, it is agreed
between the parties that the position of law stated above shall apply to all
other cases connected along with said writ petition.
25. Accordingly, the impugned decision letter rejecting the grant of
approval of pharmacy courses to the petitioner institution is quashed and the
respondent is directed to process application of the petitioner
institutionswithout insisting on the requirement of the aforesaid two
documents and in accordance with the timeline fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
26. The petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
JASMEET SINGH, J
APRIL 13, 2026/NG
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 17/04/2026 at 21:32:17