Can a newly formed state create a fresh register of pharmacists, or does the existing register of the parent state apply? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a case concerning the reorganization of states and the registration of pharmacists. This judgment clarifies the legal position of pharmacist registrations after state divisions.
The Supreme Court, in this civil appeal, examined the scope of Sections 30, 31, and 32 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and their applicability to newly formed states after the bifurcation of parent states. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice N. V. Ramana, and Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, with Justice N.V. Ramana authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case arose from the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, which led to the creation of the State of Jharkhand on November 15, 2000. Before the split, the State of Bihar had established a State Pharmacy Council on February 7, 1955, and prepared the First Register of pharmacists as per Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
Following the bifurcation, Jharkhand formed a Registration Tribunal on November 12, 2001. This tribunal published a notification on January 14, 2002, inviting applications for pharmacist registration in Jharkhand. The notification stated that all persons with qualifications under Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, were eligible to apply.
Aggrieved by this, three diploma holders in pharmacy filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand. They argued that Jharkhand could not prepare a fresh First Register and that any subsequent registration should be done according to Section 32 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which requires qualifications as per the Education Regulations.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1948 | Pharmacy Act, 1948 came into force in India. |
| 07.02.1955 | State Pharmacy Council established in Bihar. |
| 07.02.1958 | Education Regulations framed by Pharmacy Council of India came into force. |
| 15.11.2000 | State of Jharkhand formed from the bifurcation of Bihar. |
| 12.11.2001 | Jharkhand constituted a Registration Tribunal under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. |
| 14.01.2002 | Jharkhand Registration Tribunal published a notification inviting applications for pharmacist registration. |
| 25.02.2002 | Last date for submission of applications for registration in Jharkhand. |
| 24.07.2002 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur passed a judgment. |
| 03.07.2017 | Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Jharkhand ruled that the Education Regulations applicable to the erstwhile Bihar also applied to Jharkhand. It stated that only persons qualified under these regulations could be registered as pharmacists. The High Court also held that there was no need for Jharkhand to prepare a fresh First Register, as the existing register of undivided Bihar would apply to the new state.
The High Court observed that the First Register for Jharkhand would consist of those already registered in the undivided Bihar, who are now in Jharkhand. It stated that only further additions of qualified persons would be allowed as per the Education Regulations and Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined several key provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000.
- Section 2(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Defines “register” as a register of pharmacists prepared and maintained under Chapter IV of the Act.
- Section 2(i) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Defines “registered pharmacist” as a person whose name is entered in the register of the state where they reside or carry on their profession.
- Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Empowers the Pharmacy Council of India to make Education Regulations prescribing the minimum education standards for pharmacists.
- Section 29 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: States that it is the duty of the State Government to prepare a register of pharmacists for the State.
- Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Deals with the constitution of a Registration Tribunal for preparing the First Register of pharmacists. It also specifies the procedure for application, examination, and publication of the First Register.
- Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Prescribes qualifications for entry in the First Register. These qualifications include holding a degree or diploma in pharmacy, having experience in compounding drugs, or passing a recognized examination.
- Section 32 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Prescribes qualifications for subsequent registration after the Education Regulations come into force. It states that only those with qualifications as per the Education Regulations are eligible for registration.
- Section 84 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000: States that the reorganization of Bihar does not change the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day applies. It also states that any territorial references in such law to Bihar shall be construed as meaning the territories within the existing Bihar before the appointed day.
- Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000: Empowers the appropriate government to make adaptations and modifications to the law.
The Court noted that the Education Regulations, 1991, notified on July 11, 1992, are currently in force and have been uniformly implemented across the country.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- Every state must have its own First Register of pharmacists as mandated by Sections 29, 30, and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
- The High Court’s interpretation would render Sections 29, 30, and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, redundant.
- Education Regulations, being subordinate legislation, cannot override the express provisions of the Act.
State of Jharkhand’s Arguments:
- Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, requires the State Government to prepare the First Register by constituting a Registration Tribunal.
- The existence of a register in the erstwhile Bihar does not remove the obligation of Jharkhand to prepare its own First Register.
- Jharkhand, as a new and independent state, has the right to prepare its own First Register under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
- The qualifications mentioned in Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, are relevant only for the preparation of the First Register.
- Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, are general provisions and do not override the special provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
The court also noted that a large number of applications (8940 out of 10950) received by the Jharkhand Registration Tribunal were from persons who did not possess a degree or diploma in pharmacy but relied on Section 31(d) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory Requirement for First Register | Every state must have a register under Section 29 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Appellant |
| Mandatory Requirement for First Register | The State Council is duty-bound to maintain the register as required under Section 29 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Appellant |
| Mandatory Requirement for First Register | Every State has to have a First Register of pharmacists on its own as mandated in Sections 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Appellant |
| Mandatory Requirement for First Register | If the interpretation of the High Court is agreed, then Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 will become redundant. | Appellant |
| Education Regulations | Education Regulations cannot prevail over the express provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Appellant |
| Education Regulations | The High Court erred in laying down a procedure which is not in consonance with the express provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Appellant |
| Obligation to Prepare First Register | Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, requires the First Register to be prepared by the State Government by constituting a Registration Tribunal. | State of Jharkhand |
| Obligation to Prepare First Register | The existence of a register in the erstwhile State of Bihar does not take away the obligation of the State of Jharkhand to prepare the First Register. | State of Jharkhand |
| Obligation to Prepare First Register | Jharkhand is a separate and independent State, and the fact that its territories were earlier part of Bihar does not affect its rights and obligations under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | State of Jharkhand |
| Obligation to Prepare First Register | The obligation to prepare the first register and the right to do so by the new State of Jharkhand is clear and protected by Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | State of Jharkhand |
| Interpretation of Section 30 | It is not desirable to include in the First Register all the persons mentioned in Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, as eligible to be included in the first register. | State of Jharkhand |
| Interpretation of Section 30 | Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, has to be interpreted on its own terms, and since the language is clear, it has to be given effect to as it is. | State of Jharkhand |
| Education Regulations | Education Regulations cannot be invoked to interpret Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, or whittle down rights, obligations, and entitlements under Section 30. | State of Jharkhand |
| Education Regulations | Sections 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, together are a complete code for preparing the First Register, and Education Regulations are relevant only for Section 32. | State of Jharkhand |
| Bihar Reorganisation Act | There is nothing in Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, which militate against Sections 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | State of Jharkhand |
| Bihar Reorganisation Act | Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, are general provisions, whereas Sections 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, are special provisions and would prevail. | State of Jharkhand |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the First Register prepared by the State of Bihar shall be deemed to be the First Register of the State of Jharkhand in view of Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act of 2000?
- Whether persons who do not possess any qualification as prescribed by the Education Regulations are entitled to be registered by the State of Jharkhand?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Register of Bihar is the First Register of Jharkhand? | Yes, deemed to be the First Register of Jharkhand. | Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, state that laws of the parent state apply to the new state. The First Register of Bihar is a law in force. |
| Whether persons without Education Regulations qualifications can be registered? | No, only those with qualifications as per Education Regulations can be registered after their enforcement. | Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, states that after the enforcement of Education Regulations, only those with prescribed qualifications are eligible for registration. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered various authorities to reach its decision. These are listed below:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 242 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Administrative orders of the erstwhile state continue to be in force and effective on the successor states. |
| Sher Singh v. Financial Commissioner of Planning, Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 439 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Orders passed by the competent authority under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1930, would continue to have effect after the appointed date. |
| Dayanand v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 47 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Benefits under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, need to be extended to employees appointed after the bifurcation. |
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi v. Swarna Rekha Cokes and Coals (Pvt.) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 689 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Benefits flowing from the industrial policy of the erstwhile State of Bihar would enure to the benefit of industries in Jharkhand after the appointed date. |
| Section 2(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Definition of “register” as a register of pharmacists prepared and maintained under Chapter IV. |
| Section 2(i) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Definition of “registered pharmacist” as a person whose name is entered in the register of the state. |
| Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Empowers the Pharmacy Council of India to make Education Regulations. |
| Section 29 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Duty of the State Government to prepare a register of pharmacists for the State. |
| Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Deals with the constitution of a Registration Tribunal for preparing the First Register of pharmacists. |
| Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Prescribes qualifications for entry in the First Register. |
| Section 32 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 | Statute | Considered | Prescribes qualifications for subsequent registration after the Education Regulations come into force. |
| Section 84 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 | Statute | Considered | Reorganization of Bihar does not change the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day applies. |
| Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 | Statute | Considered | Empowers the appropriate government to make adaptations and modifications to the law. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the First Register prepared by the erstwhile State of Bihar would be considered the First Register for the newly formed State of Jharkhand. The Court emphasized that the reorganization of states does not invalidate existing laws, including the First Register of pharmacists.
The Court also clarified that after the enforcement of the Education Regulations, only those who possess the qualifications prescribed by these regulations are eligible for registration. The qualifications under Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, are relevant only for the preparation of the First Register and not for subsequent registrations.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Every state must have its own First Register of pharmacists. | Rejected. The First Register of the parent state applies to the new state. |
| The High Court’s interpretation would render Sections 29, 30, and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, redundant. | Rejected. Sections 29, 30, and 31 are for the initial registration, after which Section 32 and the Education Regulations apply. |
| Education Regulations cannot override the express provisions of the Act. | Rejected. Education Regulations are valid and must be followed for subsequent registrations. |
| Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, requires the State Government to prepare the First Register by constituting a Registration Tribunal. | Rejected. The existing register of the parent state applies. |
| The existence of a register in the erstwhile Bihar does not remove the obligation of Jharkhand to prepare its own First Register. | Rejected. The existing register of the parent state applies. |
| Jharkhand, as a new and independent state, has the right to prepare its own First Register under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Rejected. The existing register of the parent state applies. |
| The qualifications mentioned in Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, are relevant only for the preparation of the First Register. | Accepted. Section 31 qualifications are only for the First Register. |
| Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, are general provisions and do not override the special provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. | Rejected. The Court held that Sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, are applicable. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1976) 3 SCC 242:* The Court followed this case to hold that administrative orders of the erstwhile state continue to be in force and effective on the successor states.
- Sher Singh v. Financial Commissioner of Planning, Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 439:* The Court followed this case to hold that orders passed by the competent authority under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1930, would continue to have effect after the appointed date.
- Dayanand v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 47:* The Court followed this case to conclude that benefits under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, need to be extended to employees appointed after the bifurcation.
- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi v. Swarna Rekha Cokes and Coals (Pvt.) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 689:* The Court followed this case to hold that benefits flowing from the industrial policy of the erstwhile State of Bihar would enure to the benefit of industries in Jharkhand after the appointed date.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized the need for continuity in laws and administrative orders after the reorganization of states. It noted that the principle of a “clean slate” does not apply in state reorganization under Article 3 of the Constitution. The Court also aimed to prevent chaos and ensure that the newly formed states are not left without applicable laws.
The Court also noted that the qualifications under Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, were meant to be a temporary measure until the Education Regulations came into force. The Court emphasized that after the Education Regulations were enforced, only those who met the prescribed qualifications were eligible for registration.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Continuity of Laws and Administrative Orders | 40% |
| Prevention of Chaos | 30% |
| Temporary Nature of Section 31 Qualifications | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Can Jharkhand create a fresh First Register?
Existing First Register of Bihar is a “law” under Section 2(f) of BROA
Section 84 of BROA: Laws of parent state apply to new state
Thus, Bihar’s First Register applies to Jharkhand
Jharkhand cannot create a new First Register
Issue: Can persons without Education Regulations qualifications be registered?
Section 31 qualifications are for the First Register only
Section 32(2): After Education Regulations, only those with prescribed qualifications can be registered
Thus, persons without Education Regulations qualifications cannot be registered
The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, as well as the need for legal continuity and clarity after state reorganization.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
- “The principle of ‘clean slate’ as applicable in international law is not applicable when reorganization takes place under Article 3 of the Constitution.”
- “The reorganized States do not usually start as tabula rasa, rather they are successors of a pre-existing erstwhile States.”
- “The First Register prepared by the Bihar has the force of law under Section 2(f) of the BROA.”
Key Takeaways
- The First Register of pharmacists prepared by the parent state remains valid and applicable to the newly formed state.
- New states cannot create a fresh First Register of pharmacists.
- For subsequent registrations, all pharmacists must meet the qualifications prescribed by the Education Regulations.
- Pharmacists registered in the First Register of the parent state can seek registration in the new state under Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, without needing to fulfill the Education Regulations.
Directions
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- The First Register prepared by the erstwhile State of Bihar is to be treated as the First Register for the newly formed State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar.
- The First Register is to be bifurcated based on the territorial nexus with the residential address of the pharmacists.
- The State of Jharkhand is at liberty to constitute a State Council.
- Pharmacists registered in the First Register of the erstwhile State of Bihar, who do not wish to practice in the state where their residential address falls, are at liberty to register themselves in the other state under Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, without needing to fulfill the Education Regulations.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court clarified that the First Register of the parent state continues to be valid in the newly formed state. This judgment also reinforces that after the enforcement of Education Regulations, only those with qualifications as per the Education Regulations can be registered as pharmacists. It also clarifies that the qualifications under Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, are only relevant for the preparation of the First Register.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case provides clarity on the applicability of the First Register of pharmacists after the reorganization of states. It confirms that the First Register of the parent state continues to be valid in the newly formed state and that subsequent registrations must adhere to the Education Regulations. This decision ensures legal continuity and prevents the creation of a legal vacuum in the newly formed states.
In a connected matter (Civil Appeal No. 8382 of 2017), the Supreme Court applied similar principles to the reorganization of Madhya Pradesh and the formation of Chhattisgarh. The Court held that the First Register of Madhya Pradesh is deemed to be the First Register for Chhattisgarh, and there is no need to open another First Register. The Court also clarified that the Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council can undertake renewal under Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.