LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a University can deny affiliation to pharmacy colleges when the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has granted approval and the State Government has given conditional affiliation.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Writ Jurisdiction
Case Name: VIIT Pharmacy College and Another vs. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Another
Judgment Date: 15 April 2021
Date of the Judgment: 15 April 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 227
Judges: R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy
Can a university refuse affiliation to a pharmacy college despite approvals from the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and conditional affiliation from the State Government? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case, emphasizing the primacy of PCI regulations in pharmacy education. This case involved two pharmacy colleges seeking affiliation for the B. Pharma course for the academic year 2020-21. The bench comprised Justices R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai, and Hrishikesh Roy, with the judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.
Case Background
In January 2020, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University (the University) invited applications for affiliation. Subsequently, VIIT Pharmacy College and RV Institute of Pharmacy (the petitioners) applied for affiliation to conduct the Bachelor of Pharmacy (B. Pharma) course for the academic year 2020-21. The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) approved VIIT Pharmacy College on 10th April 2020, for 100 admissions and RV Institute of Pharmacy for 60 admissions, subject to the consent of affiliation of the Examining Authority and NOC of the State Government. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh introduced a policy on 15th May 2020, limiting pharmacy colleges to two per district. This policy was challenged in the Allahabad High Court.
The Allahabad High Court, on 2nd November 2020, set aside the policy for those who had approached the court, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Others Etc.. Following this, the petitioner colleges also got similar orders from the High Court on 9th November 2020, directing the University to consider their applications for affiliation. Despite these orders, the University rejected S.D. College of Sciences’ application on 7th December 2020, leading to further litigation. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the University’s order on 12th January 2021.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2020 | University invites applications for affiliation. |
| February 2020 | Petitioners apply for B. Pharma course affiliation. |
| 10th April 2020 | PCI grants approval to VIIT Pharmacy College and RV Institute of Pharmacy. |
| 15th May 2020 | State of Uttar Pradesh introduces policy limiting pharmacy colleges. |
| 2nd November 2020 | Allahabad High Court sets aside the policy for petitioners in other cases. |
| 9th November 2020 | Allahabad High Court allows petitions of VIIT Pharmacy College and RV Institute of Pharmacy. |
| 7th December 2020 | University rejects S.D. College of Sciences’ application for affiliation. |
| December 2020 | Petitioners file Writ Petition (C) No. 1468 of 2020 in the Supreme Court. |
| 12th January 2021 | Supreme Court stays the University’s order. |
| 19th March 2021 | State Government grants conditional affiliation after recommendations of the Affiliation Committee. |
| 15th April 2021 | Supreme Court directs University to grant affiliation. |
Course of Proceedings
The State of Uttar Pradesh’s policy dated 15th May 2020, which restricted the number of pharmacy colleges to only two per district, was challenged in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Others Etc., set aside the policy for the petitioners who had approached the court. Following this, the petitioner colleges also got similar orders from the High Court, directing the University to consider their applications for affiliation. Despite these orders, the University rejected S.D. College of Sciences’ application, leading to the petitioners approaching the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then stayed the University’s order and tagged the matter with another similar petition.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the regulations set by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). The Supreme Court has previously held in Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the norms set by the PCI are paramount in matters of pharmacy education. The court reiterated 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…”
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- ✓ The petitioners argued that they had obtained approval from the PCI for conducting the B. Pharma course.
- ✓ They highlighted that the Allahabad High Court had set aside the State Government’s policy dated 15th May 2020, which restricted the number of pharmacy colleges per district, for the petitioners.
- ✓ The petitioners pointed out that the State Government had granted conditional affiliation on 19th March 2021, after considering the recommendations of the Affiliation Committee.
- ✓ They contended that despite all these approvals, the University refused to grant them affiliation, which was unjust and unlawful.
- ✓ The petitioners also argued that their students were invited to the examination center but were not permitted to participate in the exam at the last moment.
- ✓ They relied on the order dated 5th March 2021, passed by the Supreme Court in another case, where students of one Zee College of Pharmacy were permitted to participate in the examination.
Respondent University’s Arguments:
- ✓ The University did not controvert the averments made by the petitioners in their affidavit.
- ✓ The University did not present any specific arguments against granting affiliation to the petitioner colleges.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioners) | Sub-Submissions (University) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Affiliation Denial | ✓ PCI approval obtained. ✓ High Court set aside restrictive policy. ✓ State Govt. granted conditional affiliation. ✓ Students were invited to exam center but not allowed to participate. |
✓ No specific arguments against granting affiliation. ✓ Did not controvert the averments made by the petitioners. |
| Students’ Right to Appear for Exams | ✓ Students were invited to the examination center but were not permitted to participate in the exam at the last moment. ✓ Students of other colleges were allowed to appear for the exam. |
✓ No specific arguments against the students’ right to appear for the exam. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:
- Whether the University was justified in denying affiliation to the petitioner colleges despite approvals from the PCI and conditional affiliation from the State Government.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the University was justified in denying affiliation to the petitioner colleges despite approvals from the PCI and conditional affiliation from the State Government. | The Court held that the University was not justified in denying affiliation. It emphasized the primacy of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the norms set by the PCI. The Court noted that the PCI had granted approval, the High Court had set aside the restrictive policy, and the State Government had granted conditional affiliation. The Court found no reason to deny affiliation to the petitioner colleges. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Others Etc. | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the norms set by the PCI are paramount in matters of pharmacy education. The court reiterated that the PCI’s decisions must be followed by institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners had obtained PCI approval. | Accepted. The Court noted that the PCI had granted approval to both the petitioner colleges. |
| High Court had set aside the restrictive policy. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged that the Allahabad High Court had set aside the State Government’s policy for the petitioners. |
| State Government granted conditional affiliation. | Accepted. The Court noted that the State Government had granted conditional affiliation on 19th March 2021, after considering the recommendations of the Affiliation Committee. |
| University refused to grant affiliation despite approvals. | Accepted. The Court found that the University’s refusal was not justified. |
| Students were invited to the examination center but were not permitted to participate in the exam at the last moment. | Accepted. The Court noted that the averments made on affidavit by the petitioners, were not controverted by the University. |
| University did not present any specific arguments against granting affiliation. | Accepted. The Court noted that the University did not controvert the averments made by the petitioners. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Others Etc. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 296]* to emphasize that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the norms set by the PCI are paramount in matters of pharmacy education. The Court reiterated that the PCI’s decisions must be followed by institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) had already granted approval to the petitioner colleges. The court also considered the fact that the Allahabad High Court had set aside the restrictive policy of the State Government for the petitioners and the State Government had granted conditional affiliation. The court noted that the University had not controverted the averments made by the petitioners. The court emphasized the primacy of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the norms set by the PCI in matters of pharmacy education.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| PCI Approval | 40% |
| High Court Order | 30% |
| State Government Affiliation | 20% |
| University’s inaction | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the fact that the University did not controvert the averments made on affidavit by the petitioners. The Court also considered the fact that the students of the petitioner colleges were invited to the examination center but were not permitted to participate in the exam at the last moment. The Court also relied on the order dated 5th March 2021, passed by the Supreme Court in another case, where students of one Zee College of Pharmacy were permitted to participate in the examination. The court emphasized that the norms and regulations set by the PCI must be followed by the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy.
The Court found no reason to deny affiliation to the petitioner colleges, especially since the PCI had granted approval, the High Court had set aside the restrictive policy, and the State Government had granted conditional affiliation. The Court held that the University was not justified in denying affiliation.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, taking into consideration, that the averments made on affidavit by the petitioners, are not controverted by the respondent No.1-University, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed.”
“The respondent No.1-University is therefore directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21 and also permit the students of the petitioner colleges to participate in the special examinations to be organized by the respondent No.1-University for the academic year 2020-21 in view of the notification dated 19th March 2021.”
“The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the regulations of the PCI are paramount in pharmacy education.
- ✓ Universities must respect the approvals granted by the PCI.
- ✓ State government policies cannot override the decisions of the PCI.
- ✓ Courts will intervene to ensure that educational institutions are not unfairly denied affiliation when they meet the required criteria.
- ✓ The University was directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21.
- ✓ The University was directed to permit the students of the petitioner colleges to participate in the special examinations for the academic year 2020-21.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondent No.1-University to grant affiliation to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21. The Court also directed the University to permit the students of the petitioner colleges to participate in the special examinations to be organized by the University for the academic year 2020-21.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the norms set by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) are paramount in matters of pharmacy education. This judgment reinforces the principle that universities must respect the approvals granted by the PCI and that state government policies cannot override the decisions of the PCI. This case does not change the previous position of law, but rather reinforces the existing legal framework.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in VIIT Pharmacy College vs. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University underscores the importance of adhering to the regulations of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) in matters of pharmacy education. The Court directed the University to grant affiliation to the petitioner colleges and to allow their students to participate in special examinations. This judgment reaffirms the primacy of the PCI in regulating pharmacy education and ensures that educational institutions are not unfairly denied affiliation when they meet the required criteria.