Vision College Of Pharmacy And … vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 17 July, 2026

July 22, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Vision College Of Pharmacy And … vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 17 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 learned 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 Court of

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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 senior Counsels/ 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

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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.

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15

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 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

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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 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

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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 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

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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 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

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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 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.

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15
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 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.

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

JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 17, 2026/sp

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 21/07/2026 at 20:46:15

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

Vision College Of Pharmacy And … vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 17 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders