Pharmacy Act, 1948 – All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – Applicability of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 or the AICTE Act, 1987 in relation to subject of pharmacy including the approval of courses of study, minimum standards of education required for qualification as a pharmacist, registration as a pharmacist, regulation of future professional conduct etc. – Held: The Pharmacy Act is a special Act in the field of pharmacy and it is a complete code in itself in the field of pharmacy, the pharmacy Act shall prevail over the AICTE Act which is a general statute dealing with technical education/ institutions – In the AICTE Act there is no specific repeal of the pharmacy Act, more particularly when the Pharmacy Act is a special Act and the subsequent enactment of AICTE Act is general and therefore the Pharmacy Act being a special Act must prevail – Consequently, so far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of pharmacy education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act shall prevail. Pharmacy Act, 1948 – All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – In the field of pharmacy, PCI would have the jurisdiction or AICTE constituted under the AICTE Act – Held: PCI consists of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects connected with the education of pharmacy – On the other hand, so far as AICTE is concerned, only one member would be from the field of pharmacy and that too representative of PCI – Under the circumstances, the PCI is the body of experts connected with the subject of pharmacy and related subjects and therefore it will be in the larger interest and more particularly in the interest of education of pharmacy that PCI shall alone have the jurisdiction in the field of Pharmacy rather than AICTE – Further, both PCI and AICTE are the creature of the statute – The fight of supremacy between both regulators is unhealthy for the education sector as well as the institutions to permit two TRUSTS VIDARBHA INST. OF PHARMACY
regulators to function in the same field – Therefore, when the PCI is consisting of the experts in the field of pharmacy and other related subjects, it is in the larger interest in the field of Pharmacy that the PCI must be given the power to regulate in the field of pharmacy.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: Whether the mandate of the PCI or that of the AICTE would prevail on the question of granting approval and related matters to any institution for conducting pharmacy education course, if there is any conflict/contradictions in the opinions of these two bodies.
1. As per the Preamble of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the Pharmacy Act has been enacted to make better provision for the regulation of the profession and practice of Pharmacy and for that purpose to constitute Pharmacy Councils. If this Court considers the relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, it covers all areas inclusive of approval of courses, laying down course content, eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers, evaluation of standards of examination, grant of registration, entry of higher qualification, taking action for any infamous conduct etc. The relevant provisions in the Pharmacy Act are Sections 10, 12, 13, 16, 29, 32, 35, 36 and 42. [Paras 12 & 13][732-C-D; 740-B-C]
2. In exercise of powers vested in the Pharmacy Act, PCI has framed a number of Regulations for prescribing minimum standards of education as well as regulating the subject of pharmacy in India, including:
a. Education Regulations, 1991;
b. Pharm. D Regulations, 2008;
c. Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations, 2014;
d. Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014;
e . Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014;
f. Bachelor of Pharmacy (Practice) Regulations, 2014; g. Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.
Thus, considering the various provisions of the Pharmacy Act and the regulations made therein, it can be said that the Pharmacy Act is a complete Code in itself in the subject of pharmacy. The PCI has been constituted as a body empowered to regulate the education and profession of pharmacy in India. It cannot be disputed that the subject of pharmacy is a special and not a general subject. From the relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, more particularly, the provisions referred to hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act exclusively covers all areas inclusive of approval of courses, laying down course content, eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers, evaluation standards of examination, grant of registration, entry of higher qualifications in the same discipline, taking action for infamous conduct etc. It also contains a penal provision. Thus, the legislative intent in enacting the Pharmacy Act seems to be to ensure that there is seamless regulation of the profession. To carry out the objective and purpose for enacting the Pharmacy Act, the Legislature has established under the Statute the autonomous statutory authority i.e. Pharmacy Council of India. Thus it can be said that in the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act is a special law. [Para 13.2][741-D-H; 742-A-B]
3. On the other hand, the AICTE Act can be said to be a general law applicable to the technical institutions and technical education. If this Court considers the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, it is specifically stated that the AICTE Act was originally set up by a Government Resolution as a National Expert Body to advise the Central and State Government for ensuring the coordinated development of technical education in accordance with the approved standards. [Para 13.3.][742-C-D]
4. Thus, it can be said that the AICTE Act can be said to be a general law with respect to the technical education. It is true that in the definition, as per Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, “technical education” also means “pharmacy”. [Para 13.3] [744-B]
TRUSTS VIDARBHA INST. OF PHARMACY
5. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act in the field of pharmacy and it is a complete code in itself in the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act shall prevail over the AICTE Act which, as observed hereinabove, is a general statute dealing with technical education/institutions. Therefore, the submission on behalf of AICTE and/or concerned educational institutions that the AICTE Act is a subsequent law and in the definition of “technical education” it includes the “pharmacy” and therefore it can be said to be an “implied repeal”, cannot be accepted. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such in the AICTE Act there is no specific repeal of the Pharmacy Act, more particularly when, as observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act and the subsequent enactment of AICTE Act is general and therefore the Pharmacy Act being a Special Act must prevail. Apart from that, with regard to several aspects, there is no provision made in AICTE Act which are exclusively within the domain of PCI. Thus, it cannot be accepted that there is ‘implied repeal’ of the Pharmacy Act. [Para 15][749B-D]
Whether in the field of pharmacy, PCI would have the jurisdiction or AICTE constituted under the AICTE Act which is held to be a general law.
7. PCI consists of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects connected with the education of pharmacy. Therefore, under the statute, specialized persons in the field of pharmaceutical, pharmacy etc. shall be the members of the PCI. [Para 16][749-E; 750-E]
8. On the other hand, so far as AICTE is concerned, only one member would be from the field of pharmacy and that too representative of PCI. Under the circumstances, the PCI is the body of experts connected with the subject of pharmacy and related subjects and therefore it will be in the larger interest and more particularly in the interest of education of pharmacy that PCI shall alone have the Jurisdiction in the field of pharmacy, rather than AICTE. [Para 16.1][750-F]
9. The aforesaid question is also required to be viewed from another angle. Both, the PCI and AICTE are the creature of the statute. Therefore, it is not at all healthy that the two regulators, both being Central authorities, can be permitted to fight for supremacy. The fight of supremacy between both the regulators is unhealthy for the education sector as well as the institutions to permit two regulators to function in the same field. Therefore also and more particularly when the PCI is consisting of the experts in the field of pharmacy and other related subjects, it is in the larger interest in the field of pharmacy that the PCI must be given the power to regulate in the field of pharmacy. [Para 17][750-GH; 751-A]
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is held that in the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail. The norms and regulations set by the PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act would have to be followed by the concerned institutions imparting education for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy, including the norms and regulations with respect to increase and/or decrease in intake capacity of the students and the decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions are answered accordingly. [Para 21][753E-F] UPSEB v. Hari Shanker Jain (1978) 4 SCC 16 : [1979]
1 SCR 355; LIC of India v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC
315 : [1981] 1 SCR 1083; Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1 : [2013] 15 SCR 1; R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387; AICTE v. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture (2019) SCC Online SC 1445 : (2019) 16 SCALE 421 – relied on.
Bharathidasan University v. All-India Council for Technical Education (2001) 8 SCC 676 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253; Municipal Council v. T.J. Joseph [1964] 2 SCR 87; Byram Prestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India (1992) 1 SCC 31 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 187; Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577 : TRUSTS VIDARBHA INST. OF PHARMACY
[2003] 1 SCR 634; Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 323 : [1991] 3 SCR 873; Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan (1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 343 : [1991] 1 SCR 579; Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127 : [1984]
3 SCR 252; Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All Indian Council for Technical Education (2013) 8 SCC 385 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.