Sd College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 13 July, 2026

July 17, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Sd College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 13 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 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

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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, 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.

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

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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 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 to each individual

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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 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

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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 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

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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-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

This is a digitally signed order.

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, 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

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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.

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

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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38
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.

8. Accordingly, PCI is directed to issue letter of “Permanent approval” with
QR-Code in respect of existing Pharmacy Courses already approved by PCI
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 13, 2026/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 16/07/2026 at 20:56:38

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

Sd College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 13 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders