Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 229
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Vineet Saran, J., M. R. Shah, J.
Can two regulatory bodies oversee the same educational field? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a dispute between the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The core issue was whether PCI or AICTE has the final authority to regulate pharmacy education, including course approvals and standards. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) holds primary regulatory authority over pharmacy education in India. The bench comprised Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and M. R. Shah, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M. R. Shah.
Case Background
The dispute arose when various pharmacy colleges, having obtained approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to increase their student intake, faced objections from the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). The PCI, responsible for regulating pharmacy education and practice, contested the AICTE’s authority in this domain. The colleges had approached various High Courts, which often ruled in favor of the AICTE, leading to conflicting orders. This prompted the Supreme Court to transfer these cases to itself to resolve the conflict between the two regulatory bodies. The core of the dispute was whether the Pharmacy Act, 1948, or the AICTE Act, 1987, should govern pharmacy education standards and approvals.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1945 | AICTE established by a government resolution as an advisory body. |
| 1948 | The Pharmacy Act enacted to regulate the profession of pharmacy. |
| 1985 | National Working Group set up to review the role of AICTE. |
| 1986 | National Policy on Education stipulates vesting AICTE with statutory powers. |
| 1987 | The AICTE Act enacted, giving statutory powers to AICTE. |
| Various Dates | Respondent colleges obtain approvals from AICTE to increase intake. |
| Various Dates | PCI objects to the increased intake, leading to litigation in High Courts. |
| 2018 | Supreme Court observes the need to revisit the definition of technical education in the AICTE Act. |
| 30.09.2019 | Inter-Ministerial meeting decides to delete “pharmacy” from the definition of “technical education” under the AICTE Act. |
| 05.03.2020 | Supreme Court delivers final judgment, affirming PCI’s authority over pharmacy education. |
Course of Proceedings
Several pharmacy colleges had approached different High Courts, challenging the actions of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) regarding approvals for second shifts and restrictions on increasing student intake. These colleges had secured permissions from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to increase their intake capacity. The High Courts generally favored the AICTE, holding it as the supreme authority over the PCI in matters of technical education. Interim orders were issued allowing institutions to continue with the increased intake approved by AICTE. Some of these interim orders were later made absolute. Due to conflicting judgments and the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court transferred the cases to itself for final adjudication.
Legal Framework
The core legal framework of this case revolves around two key statutes:
- The Pharmacy Act, 1948: This Act aims to regulate the profession and practice of pharmacy. Key sections include:
- Section 10: Empowers the PCI to set minimum education standards for pharmacists. It allows the PCI to prescribe the nature and period of study, equipment and facilities, subjects of examination, and other admission conditions.
“Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the PCI to frame Education Regulations prescribing the minimum standards of education required for qualification as a pharmacist.” - Section 12: Grants the PCI the power to approve courses of study and examinations in pharmacy.
“Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the PCI to grant approval to an Institution which conducts a “course of study” for pharmacist.” - Section 13: Empowers the PCI to withdraw approval of courses and examinations for non-compliance.
- Section 16: Authorizes the Executive Committee to appoint inspectors to inspect institutions.
- Section 29: Deals with the preparation and maintenance of a register of pharmacists.
- Section 35: Provides for the entry of additional qualifications in the register.
- Section 36: Allows for the removal of persons from the register.
- Section 42: Prohibits the practice of pharmacy without registration and includes penal provisions for violations.
“Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, a person may not practice the profession of pharmacy unless he or she is registered as a pharmacist in accordance with the Pharmacy Act”
- Section 10: Empowers the PCI to set minimum education standards for pharmacists. It allows the PCI to prescribe the nature and period of study, equipment and facilities, subjects of examination, and other admission conditions.
- The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Act, 1987: This Act aims to ensure the coordinated development of technical education.
- Section 2(g): Defines “technical education” and includes “pharmacy” within its scope.
“Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act defines ‘technical education” and it includes “pharmacy”.”
- Section 2(g): Defines “technical education” and includes “pharmacy” within its scope.
The conflict arises because both Acts seem to claim authority over pharmacy education. The Pharmacy Act establishes the PCI as the primary regulator for pharmacy, while the AICTE Act includes pharmacy under its purview of technical education. The Supreme Court had to determine which Act should prevail in this context, and how the legal framework fits within the broader constitutional scheme of education regulation.
Arguments
The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) argued that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, is a complete code for regulating pharmacy education and practice, giving it exclusive jurisdiction. The PCI contended that the AICTE Act, 1987, being a general law for technical education, cannot override the specific provisions of the Pharmacy Act.
- PCI’s Main Arguments:
-
✓ The Pharmacy Act is a special law dealing specifically with pharmacy, while the AICTE Act is a general law for technical education.
“That subject of Pharmacy is a special and not a general subject. It is submitted that it has been exhaustively dealt with by the Parliament through the Pharmacy Act which exhaustively 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, taking action for any infamous conduct etc.” -
✓ The PCI is empowered to regulate both the education and profession of pharmacy, including setting standards, approving courses, and registering pharmacists.
“That, under the Pharmacy Act, the PCI has been constituted as a body empowered to regulate the education and profession of Pharmacy in India.” -
✓ The term “pharmacy” in the AICTE Act’s definition of “technical education” should be dropped or treated as inapplicable to avoid conflicts.
“It is submitted that having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, as well as the statutory scheme under the Pharmacy Act, the said word “pharmacy” would deserve to be dropped from the definition of “technical education” under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act and would deserve to be held to be inapplicable in relation to the regulatory measures for prescribing minimum standards for education in the field of pharmacy.” -
✓ The PCI argued that the legislative intent behind the Pharmacy Act was to ensure seamless regulation of the profession, from education to practice.
“That the legislative intent in enacting the Pharmacy Act was to ensure that there is seamless regulation of the profession, both in terms of the qualifications required to be registered as a pharmacist and the actual practice of pharmacy as a profession.” -
✓ The PCI relied on the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, stating that a special law prevails over a general law.
“That even otherwise the Pharmacy Act being a special law on the subject of Pharmacy would prevail over the AICTE Act. It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that a special law dealing with any subject would prevail over the general law which may be dealing with the said subject only incidentally.” - ✓ The PCI cited the Supreme Court’s decision in AICTE v. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture (2019), which held that the Council of Architecture has exclusive jurisdiction over architecture education, despite the AICTE Act including architecture.
- ✓ The PCI highlighted that it is a body of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects, making it better suited to regulate pharmacy education.
-
✓ The Pharmacy Act is a special law dealing specifically with pharmacy, while the AICTE Act is a general law for technical education.
The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) argued that the AICTE Act, 1987, is a later law that includes “pharmacy” in its definition of “technical education,” granting it the power to regulate pharmacy education. The AICTE contended that it has the authority to set minimum standards for technical education, including pharmacy.
- AICTE’s Main Arguments:
-
✓ The AICTE Act, 1987, is a later enactment and should prevail over the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
“That as held by this Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127, the later law will prevail. It is submitted that therefore the AICTE Act, which is a later Act, shall prevail over the Pharmacy Act.” -
✓ The definition of “technical education” in the AICTE Act includes “pharmacy,” giving it the mandate to regulate pharmacy education.
“That the Legislature in its own wisdom has included Pharmacy in the definition of ‘technical education’ in the AICTE Act and given AICTE powers to maintain the norms and standard of technical education for proper and coordinated development of technical education.” -
✓ The AICTE claimed that it has the power to maintain norms and standards for technical education, including pharmacy.
“It is submitted that the AICTE Act has been enacted for regulating and fixing minimum standard for technical education and education institutions in the field of technical education, as defined in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.” -
✓ The AICTE argued that the inclusion of “pharmacy” in the AICTE Act was a deliberate legislative decision that should not be altered by the court.
“That deleting the word “Pharmacy” from AICTE Act which has specifically been incorporated by the Legislature will amount to legislate which is not permissible, as held by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 323.” - ✓ The AICTE contended that it is empowered to decide on seat intake increase based on infrastructural requirements.
- ✓ The AICTE argued that the Pharmacy Act primarily regulates professionals, while the AICTE Act regulates institutions.
-
✓ The AICTE relied on Article 372 of the Constitution, arguing that the AICTE Act, being a later law, alters the field covered by the Pharmacy Act.
“It is submitted that therefore in terms of Article 372 of the Constitution, the 1987 Act to the extent it covers the same field as covered by the existing law i.e. 1948 Act, will prevail and the provisions of the 1948 Act to that extent stand repealed/altered.”
-
✓ The AICTE Act, 1987, is a later enactment and should prevail over the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
The respondent colleges and other parties also presented arguments, often supporting the AICTE’s position while acknowledging the PCI’s role in regulating the profession of pharmacy. They also argued for the protection of students already admitted under AICTE approvals.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | PCI Sub-Submissions | AICTE Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the Acts |
|
|
| Regulatory Authority |
|
|
| Interpretation of Statutes |
|
|
| Precedents and Constitution |
|
|
The innovativeness of the arguments was primarily on the side of the PCI, which successfully argued for a narrow interpretation of the AICTE Act to exclude pharmacy, despite the explicit inclusion of the term in the definition of “technical education”. This argument, drawing from the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant and the precedent set in the architecture case, was crucial in persuading the court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues to address the core dispute:
- Whether the Pharmacy Act, 1948, or the AICTE Act, 1987, applies to the subject of pharmacy, including approval of courses, minimum standards of education, and registration of pharmacists.
- Whether the mandate of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) or the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) would prevail on the question of granting approval to institutions for conducting pharmacy courses.
- Which body, i.e., AICTE or PCI, would be primarily responsible for the regulation of pharmaceutical education in India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Pharmacy Act or AICTE Act | The Pharmacy Act, 1948, prevails. | The Pharmacy Act is a special law dealing specifically with pharmacy, while the AICTE Act is a general law for technical education. |
| Mandate of PCI or AICTE | The mandate of the PCI prevails. | The PCI is the expert body for pharmacy education and regulation, and the Pharmacy Act is a complete code for pharmacy. |
| Responsibility for regulation | PCI is primarily responsible for the regulation of pharmaceutical education in India. | The PCI, being composed of experts in the field of pharmacy, is better suited to regulate pharmacy education. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision. These authorities were categorized by the specific legal points they supported:
| Legal Point | Authority | Court | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special Law vs. General Law | UPSEB v. Hari Shanker Jain (1978) 4 SCC 16 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, stating that a special provision should prevail over a general one. |
| Special Law vs. General Law | LIC of India v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC 315 | Supreme Court of India | Clarified the principle that a special law prevails over a general law and that implied repeal is a last resort. |
| Special Law vs. General Law | Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that a special law prevails over a general law when there is a conflict. |
| Implied Repeal | Municipal Council v. T.J. Joseph (1964) 2 SCR 87 | Supreme Court of India | Held that there is no presumption that a later law impliedly repeals an earlier law when both deal with the same subject matter. |
| Implied Repeal | Byram Prestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India (1992) 1 SCC 31 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that fundamental changes in law cannot be presumed by implied repeal and must be explicit. |
| Interpretation of Statutes | Bharathidasan University v. All-India Council for Technical Education (2001) 8 SCC 676 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the scope of powers of the AICTE and the legislative intent behind the AICTE Act. |
| Interpretation of Statutes | Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the language of a statute should be interpreted plainly and not in a different manner. |
| Interpretation of Statutes | Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 323 | Supreme Court of India | Held that courts cannot rewrite, recast, or reframe legislation. |
| Interpretation of Statutes | Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 343 | Supreme Court of India | Held that every part of a statute should have effect. |
| Interpretation of Statutes | Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127 | Supreme Court of India | Held that the later law will prevail. |
| Similar Issue | AICTE v. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture (2019) SCC Online SC 1445 | Supreme Court of India | Held that the Council of Architecture has exclusive jurisdiction over architecture education, despite the AICTE Act including architecture. |
| Constitutional Provision | Article 372 of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Deals with the continuation of existing laws, stating that pre-constitutional statutes continue to operate unless repealed. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, 1987: Definition of “technical education,” which includes “pharmacy.”
- Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Empowers PCI to set minimum standards of education.
- Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Empowers PCI to approve courses of study and examinations.
- Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948: Prohibits the practice of pharmacy without registration.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| PCI’s argument that the Pharmacy Act is a special law. | Accepted. The Court held that the Pharmacy Act is a special law dealing specifically with pharmacy, while the AICTE Act is a general law for technical education. |
| PCI’s argument that PCI has exclusive jurisdiction over pharmacy education. | Accepted. The Court affirmed that PCI has the authority to regulate pharmacy education, including setting standards, approving courses, and registering pharmacists. |
| PCI’s argument that “pharmacy” should be dropped from the AICTE Act’s definition of “technical education.” | Partially Accepted. The Court held that the word “pharmacy” should be treated as inapplicable in cases where AICTE imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking pharmacy education. |
| PCI’s reliance on the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant. | Accepted. The Court applied the principle, stating that a special law prevails over a general law. |
| PCI’s reliance on the Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture case. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the view taken in the architecture case, which held that the Council of Architecture has exclusive jurisdiction over architecture education. |
| AICTE’s argument that the AICTE Act is a later law and should prevail. | Rejected. The Court held that the Pharmacy Act, being a special law, prevails over the AICTE Act, despite the latter being a later enactment. |
| AICTE’s argument that the definition of “technical education” includes “pharmacy.” | Partially Rejected. The Court held that the inclusion of “pharmacy” in the AICTE Act’s definition should not extend to regulating pharmacy education, which is the domain of the PCI. |
| AICTE’s argument that it has the power to set minimum standards for technical education, including pharmacy. | Rejected. The Court held that the PCI has the power to set standards for pharmacy education. |
| AICTE’s reliance on Article 372 of the Constitution. | Rejected. The Court stated that Article 372 does not support the argument that the AICTE Act repealed the Pharmacy Act. |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:
-
✓ The Pharmacy Act, 1948, is a special law specifically designed to regulate the profession and practice of pharmacy. It is a complete code in itself, covering all aspects of pharmacy education and practice.
“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 AICTE Act, 1987, is a general law aimed at ensuring the coordinated development of technical education, which includes various fields. It is not a specialized law for pharmacy.
“Thus, it can be said that the AICTE Act can be said to be a general law with respect to the technical education.” -
✓ The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applies, meaning that a special law prevails over a general law.
“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.” -
✓ The PCI is composed of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects, making it the appropriate body to regulate pharmacy education.
“Therefore, under the statute, specialized persons in the field of pharmaceutical, pharmacy etc. shall be the members of the PCI.” -
✓ The Court emphasized the need to avoid conflicts and unhealthy competition between regulatory bodies.
“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 Court followed the precedent set in the Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture case, which held that the Council of Architecture has exclusive jurisdiction over architecture education.
-
✓ The Court noted that the Union of India also supports the deletion of “pharmacy” from the definition of “technical education” in the AICTE Act.
“Therefore, even according to the Union of India, the word ‘pharmacy’ is to be deleted from the definition of ‘technical education’ contained in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- ✓ Expertise: The Court recognized that the PCI, being composed of experts in pharmacy and related fields, is better equipped to regulate pharmacy education than the AICTE, which has a broader mandate over various technical fields.
- ✓ Legislative Intent: The Court determined that the legislative intent behind the Pharmacy Act was to create a specialized regulatory body for pharmacy, and that the AICTE Act, being a general law, should not override this specific intent.
- ✓ Avoiding Conflicts: The Court aimed to resolve the conflict between two regulatory bodies, emphasizing that it is not healthy for two central authorities to compete for supremacy in the same field.
- ✓ Precedent: The Court followed the precedent set in the architecture case, reinforcing the principle that specialized regulatory bodies should have exclusive jurisdiction over their respective fields.
- ✓ Statutory Interpretation: The Court interpreted the AICTE Act narrowly to exclude pharmacy, despite its inclusion in the definition of “technical education,” to ensure the effective implementation of the Pharmacy Act.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Expertise of PCI | 30% |
| Legislative Intent of Pharmacy Act | 30% |
| Avoiding Conflicts between Regulatory Bodies | 20% |
| Precedent in Architecture Case | 10% |
| Statutory Interpretation | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The sentiment analysis shows that the Court was primarily influenced by the expertise of the PCI and the legislative intent behind the Pharmacy Act. The ratio of fact to law indicates that the Court’s decision was largely based on legal considerations rather than factual aspects of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Decision
The Supreme Court’s final decision was as follows:
- ✓ The Pharmacy Act, 1948, prevails over the AICTE Act, 1987, in matters relating to pharmacy education.
- ✓ The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is the primary regulatory authority for pharmacy education in India.
- ✓ The word “pharmacy” in the definition of “technical education” in the AICTE Act should be treated as inapplicable in cases where it conflicts with the regulatory framework of the PCI.
- ✓ The Court directed the Union of India to take necessary steps to amend the AICTE Act to align it with the judgment.
-
✓ The Court clarified that the AICTE has no role to play in granting approval to institutions for conducting pharmacy courses.
“The AICTE has no role to play in the grant of approval to the institutions for conducting the courses in pharmacy.” - ✓ The Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts that had favored the AICTE’s authority over pharmacy education.
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively clarified the regulatory landscape for pharmacy education in India, establishing the PCI as the sole authority for setting standards, approving courses, and regulating the profession.
Implications
The implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment are far-reaching:
- ✓ For Pharmacy Institutions: Institutions offering pharmacy courses must now seek approvals and comply with the standards set by the PCI. Approvals from AICTE are no longer sufficient or relevant.
- ✓ For Students: Students pursuing pharmacy courses are now assured that the standards of education are regulated by a specialized body with expertise in the field.
- ✓ For the PCI: The PCI’s authority as the primary regulator for pharmacy education is firmly established, reinforcing its mandate to ensure high standards in the profession.
- ✓ For the AICTE: The AICTE’s role in regulating pharmacy education is curtailed, and it must now focus on other areas of technical education.
- ✓ For the Regulatory Framework: The judgment provides clarity in the regulatory framework, avoiding confusion and conflicts between regulatory bodies.
- ✓ For the Union of India: The judgment has prompted the Union of India to amend the AICTE Act to align it with the Court’s decision, ensuring that the legal framework is consistent with the regulatory structure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pharmacy Council of India vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts is a landmark decision that has clarified the regulatory landscape for pharmacy education in India. By upholding the primacy of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the authority of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), the Court has ensured that pharmacy education is regulated by a specialized body with expertise in the field. The judgment has resolved the conflict between the PCI and the AICTE, providing clarity and stability to the regulatory framework. It has also reinforced the principle that special laws should prevail over general laws, and that regulatory bodies should not compete for supremacy in the same field. This decision is crucial for maintaining high standards in pharmacy education and ensuring the competence of pharmacists in India.