Affiliation for B. Pharma Courses Granted: Supreme Court's Directive

Content

AFFILIATION FOR B. PHARMA COURSES GRANTED: SUPREME COURT'S DIRECTIVE

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University to grant affiliation for the Bachelor of Pharmacy (B. Pharma) courses to VIIT Pharmacy College and another institution for the academic year 2020-21. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the norms set by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring compliance with educational regulations.

Case Background

The petitioners, VIIT Pharmacy College and RV Institute of Pharmacy, approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University to grant them affiliation for the B. Pharma course for the academic year 2020-21. The petitioners had submitted their applications in February 2020 in response to the university's invitation for affiliation.

The PCI had granted approval to VIIT Pharmacy College on April 10, 2020, for conducting the first year of the B. Pharma course with an intake capacity of 100 students. Similarly, RV Institute of Pharmacy received approval for an intake of 60 students, contingent upon obtaining the necessary consent from the examining authority and the state government.

However, the situation became complicated when the State of Uttar Pradesh introduced a policy on May 15, 2020, limiting the number of pharmacy colleges to two per district. This policy was challenged in the Allahabad High Court, which ruled against the state government’s restrictions, allowing the petitioners to participate in the admission counseling for the B. Pharma course.

Despite the favorable ruling from the High Court, the university rejected the applications for affiliation on December 7, 2020. The petitioners subsequently filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, which stayed the university's order and tagged it with another related petition.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Allahabad High Court had previously set aside the state government's policy restricting the number of pharmacy colleges, allowing the petitioners to seek affiliation. The court emphasized that the PCI's approval was paramount in determining the eligibility of the colleges for affiliation.

The High Court's decisions were based on the premise that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the regulations set by the PCI must be followed by institutions imparting pharmacy education. The court's rulings allowed the petitioners to challenge the university's refusal to grant affiliation.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while examining the case, noted that the PCI had granted approval to both petitioners for the B. Pharma course. The court highlighted that the university's refusal to grant affiliation was not justified, especially since the PCI's approval was a critical factor in the affiliation process.

The court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy, where it was established that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, prevails in matters concerning pharmacy education. The norms and regulations set by the PCI must be adhered to by educational institutions, particularly regarding student intake capacities and other operational guidelines.

In this case, the court found that the university's actions were not in line with the established legal framework. The petitioners had complied with all necessary requirements, including obtaining PCI approval and challenging the state government's restrictive policy. The court noted that the university's refusal to grant affiliation and allow students to participate in examinations was unjustified.

Statutory Interpretation

The ruling underscores the significance of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which governs pharmacy education in India. The court reiterated that the norms and regulations set by the PCI are binding on all institutions offering pharmacy courses. This interpretation reinforces the authority of the PCI in regulating pharmacy education and ensures that institutions comply with the established standards.

CONSTITUTIONAL OR POLICY CONTEXT

While the judgment primarily focused on statutory interpretation, it also reflects broader constitutional principles regarding the right to education and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding educational rights. The court's intervention highlights the necessity for educational institutions to operate within the legal framework and adhere to the directives issued by regulatory bodies.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reaffirms the authority of the PCI in regulating pharmacy education and emphasizes that institutions must comply with its norms. Secondly, it highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that students' rights to education are protected, particularly when administrative bodies fail to act in accordance with the law.

The decision also serves as a precedent for similar cases where educational institutions face challenges in obtaining affiliations or where students are denied the right to participate in examinations due to administrative hurdles. It reinforces the principle that judicial intervention is necessary to uphold the rule of law in the education sector.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court directed the Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University to grant affiliation to the petitioners for the academic year 2020-21 and to allow their students to participate in the special examinations organized by the university. The court's ruling not only resolved the immediate issue for the petitioners but also set a clear standard for future cases involving affiliation and examination rights in pharmacy education.

Case Details

• Case Title: VIIT Pharmacy College and Another vs Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Another
• Citation: 2021 INSC 255
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hrishikesh Roy
• Date of Judgment: 2021-04-15