Case Summary: Pharmacy Council of India vs Rajeev College of Pharmacy & Others

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Date of Judgment: 15 September 2022 
• Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice P.S. Narasimha 
• Civil Appeal No.: C.A. No. 006681 of 2022 
• Originating Appeal: Writ Appeal No. 746/2020 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, judgment dated 09-11-2021) 
• Parties:

1. Appellant: Pharmacy Council of India (PCI)
2. Respondents: Rajeev College of Pharmacy & Others

Facts & Background

The PCI, a statutory regulatory body constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, issued communications dated 17 July 2019 and 9 September 2019 imposing a moratorium on the establishment of new pharmacy colleges for a period of five years, starting from the academic year 2020–21. Several writ petitions were filed challenging such moratorium, including by Rajeev College of Pharmacy, before various High Courts (Karnataka, Delhi, Chhattisgarh), which quashed the moratorium. The PCI’s appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 6681 of 2022) was thus heard. 

Issues

1. Whether the right to establish an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is a fundamental right.
2. Whether the moratorium imposed by PCI via communications/resolutions (executive instructions) could be validly imposed under the Pharmacy Act.
3. Whether such restrictions could lawfully be imposed without following the statutory procedure laid down for framing Regulations under Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act.

Arguments

For PCI (Appellant): PCI has statutory authority to regulate pharmacy education and, consequently, to impose restrictions such as moratoriums in public interest, especially to curb “mushrooming” of colleges and impending unemployment of pharmacists.

The moratorium was based on a sub-committee recommendation and considered expert inputs.

Such measures are within PCI’s regulatory competence. 

For Respondents: Establishing an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions only by law.

The moratorium, being a blanket prohibition, lacked reasonable nexus, proportionality, and was arbitrary—especially as PCI exempted government and North-Eastern institutions.

No Regulations were framed under Section 10 of the Act—hence imposition by executive instruction is invalid. 

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by PCI, upholding the High Courts’ decisions. No order as to costs was made; writ petitions were disposed of accordingly. Pending applications were also disposed. The Court emphatically held that:

“The right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).”

Reasonable restrictions on this right can only be imposed by law, i.e., through properly enacted Regulations, not by executive instructions or resolutions. The communications of 17 July 2019 and 9 September 2019 by PCI were therefore struck down as invalid. While recognizing the need for controlling proliferation of pharmacy colleges, the Court reiterated that such objectives must be achieved within the confines of statutory procedure and the law. 

Appeal – Dismissed (PCI’s appeals dismissed)

Costs – None awarded

Significance 

• This judgment reaffirms that the PCI, as a statutory body, cannot circumvent legislative safeguards by imposing broad restrictions without following due process.
• By invalidating the moratorium, the judgment protects the constitutional right of private entities to establish educational institutions, subject to law.
• The decision underscores the principle that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional mandates.