Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In the backdrop of multiple litigations being initiated against it by pharma colleges, the Supreme Court recently slammed the Pharmacy Council of India and said that expert bodies like it should act in a responsible manner.

"Looking at the facts in all these matters...we are of the considered opinion that it is high time that such bodies like Pharmacy Council of India, which is supposed to be expert in the field of specialized education, acts with due diligence. It is only on account of total lack of application of mind and exercise of powers in an arbitrary manner that this Court is flooded with petitions after petitions challenging the orders of the Pharmacy Council of India", observed a bench of Justice BR Gavai (now CJI) and Justice AG Masih.

While setting aside the Pharmacy Council's rejections of certain institutions' approvals, the Court directed the concerned Registrar to forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to take suitable action so that "such unwarranted litigation" can be avoided in future.

The Court was dealing with a batch of 14 cases filed by pharma colleges. In one of the cases, permission for extension of D.Pharm course was granted to the petitioner-institution, subject to inspection throughout the year. However, within a few months, the approval was rejected on the ground that the institution had not submitted its satisfactory compliance regarding various factors.

The Court opined that before rejecting the approval, Pharmacy Council ought to have carried out an inspection and given the petitioner-institution an opportunity to rectify any lacunae found. "We find that the respondent/Pharmacy Council of India has acted in an arbitrary manner and therefore the decision dated 09.12.2024 is liable to be set aside", it said.

Insofar as the Pharmacy Council regularized the said institution's approval for 2024-25, in view of admissions granted to 46 students following the initial grant of permission, the Court observed that the Council had shown a "charitable attitude". However, it added, "when an action of a statutory body is likely to affect the careers of large number of students, such bodies are expected to act in a manner which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and non-arbitrariness."

In another "classic example" of Pharmacy Council's "arbitrary attitude", the Court noted that grant of extension of another institution's approval was subject to inspection throughout the year. An inspection was conducted and no deficiencies pointed out, yet the Pharmacy Council rejected the institution's approval. In this backdrop, the Court observed,

"It is, thus, clear that either the inspection report is not correct, or the Council has not applied its mind to the inspection report. As already observed by us in the matter of even date, we have observed that the respondent/Pharmacy Council of India cannot act in an arbitrary manner when such an action adversely affects the careers of thousands of students."

Appearance: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocates Devadutt Kamat, Sanjay Sharawat and Neeraj Jain

Case Title: SHREE RAM COLLEGE OF PHARMACY Versus PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 24/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Click here to read the order