Delhi High Court – Orders
Santosh College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 23 July, 2026
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~58,60,65,83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9994/2026 & CM APPL. 46517/2026
SANTOSH COLLEGE OF PHARMACY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv Mr.
Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv Mr.
Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Jayant Dubey Adv
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Divyansh
Singh, Adv.
60
+ W.P.(C) 10001/2026 & CM APPL. 46533/2026
RAMESHWARAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND
MANAGEMENT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv Mr.
Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv Mr.
Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Jayant Dubey Adv
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Divyansh
Singh, Adv.
65
+ W.P.(C) 10011/2026 & CM APPL. 46567/2026
MRIDUL TUSHAR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv Mr.
Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv Mr.
Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Jayant Dubey Adv
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Divyansh
Singh, Adv.
83
+ W.P.(C) 10053/2026 & CM APPL. 46791/2026, CM APPL.
46792/2026
BM COLLEGE OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr Abhijeet Vikram Singh, Adv
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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Divyansh
Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 23.07.2026
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 the Pharmacy Act, 1948 in
respect of pharmacy courses already approved by the Pharmacy Council of
India (“PCI”).
2. It is submitted by counsels appearing for the petitioners that a Co-
ordinate bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in
W.P. (C) No. 617/2024 and connected matters, has held that the 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
the PCI filed intra court appeal by an LPA bearing No. 614/2024 which was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide its judgment and Order dated
29.05.2026. It is also submitted that the PCI has filed SLP (C)
(D.No.36158/2026) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated 17.06.2026 has
declined the prayer for an interim stay in the matter.
3. For the said reasons, issue notice.
4. Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent and does not dispute the aforesaid factual position, however, he
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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
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.
5. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.
6. 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.
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,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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
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.”
7. Thereafter, PCI filed an intra court appeal being LPA No. 614/2024
which was dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment and order dated 29.05.2026 observing as under:-
“32. We may also note and observe that the submission
made on behalf of appellant-PCI that ‘Course’ refers toThis 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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
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 the
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 be given by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
PCI to Section 12 (1), distinguishing ‘Course of Study’ andThis 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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
‘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
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.
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 16 of the Act, 1948, that empowers the PCI toThis 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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
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. 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-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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
and they shall have effect only on their publication in the
Official Gazette. 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. 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. 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 ofThis 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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
approval of ‘Course of Study’ is made only on the
satisfaction of the Central Council of the appellant-PCI,
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. 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. 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. Learned Single Judge hasThis 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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
also opined that this principle does not have application
where the statute is unambiguous and does not admit more
than one meaning.
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.
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
Single 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.”
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, PCI filed SLP (C) D. No.
36158/2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Order dated
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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
17.06.2026 has declined the prayer for interim stay. Thus, in my view, the
petitioners which are existing and approved pharmacy institutions are
entitled for “permanent approval” under Section 12 (1) of the Pharmacy Act
1948.
9. 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 already approved by PCI within a period of 2 weeks
from today, subject to the outcome of pending SLP before the Hon’ble
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.
10. In view of above, present writ petitions alongwith pending
applications, if any, are disposed of.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 23, 2026 / (MS)
(Corrected and released on 30.07.2026)
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 30/07/2026 at 20:40:01
