Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India addressed appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India challenging judgments from the High Courts of Karnataka, Delhi, and Chhattisgarh that had struck down a moratorium on opening new pharmacy colleges. The PCI had imposed a five-year moratorium via resolutions dated 17th July 2019 and 9th September 2019, applicable from the 2020-2021 academic year, with exemptions for government institutions, North Eastern regions, and states with fewer than 50 pharmacy institutions. Several pharmacy institutions filed writ petitions challenging the moratorium's validity, arguing it violated their fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) and was arbitrary. The High Courts allowed these petitions, prompting the PCI's appeals. The PCI contended that under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, particularly Sections 3, 10, and 12, it has the power to regulate pharmacy education, which includes imposing a moratorium to prevent mushrooming growth of colleges and resultant unemployment. It emphasized that its Central Council, composed of experts, made the decision after a sub-committee study. The institutions argued that the moratorium constituted an absolute prohibition without statutory basis and should have been enacted through regulations under Section 10, failing which it was unreasonable and discriminatory. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the PCI's regulatory power encompasses imposing a moratorium and whether it violates constitutional rights. The court referenced precedents establishing that the power to regulate includes the power to prohibit and that resolutions can be considered law under Article 13. It also considered the fundamental right to establish institutions but focused on the reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(6). The court held that the PCI, as an expert body, has the duty and power to impose such moratoriums in the public interest to maintain educational standards and prevent unemployment, thereby setting aside the High Courts' judgments and upholding the moratorium as valid.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 19(1)(g) - Right to Establish Educational Institutions - Institutions challenged moratorium as violating fundamental right to establish educational institutions - Court considered this right but focused on reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19(6) - Held that regulatory power to impose moratorium constitutes reasonable restriction in public interest (Paras 13-15). B) Education Law - Pharmacy Education - Regulatory Power - Pharmacy Act, 1948, Sections 3, 10, 12 - Pharmacy Council of India imposed five-year moratorium on new pharmacy colleges - High Courts had struck down moratorium - Supreme Court examined whether PCI has power to regulate including imposing moratorium - Held that power to regulate includes power to prohibit or impose moratorium to prevent mushrooming growth and unemployment (Paras 6-12). C) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Validity of Resolutions - Pharmacy Act, 1948 - PCI imposed moratorium via resolutions dated 17th July 2019 and 9th September 2019 - Institutions argued moratorium should be through regulations under Section 10 - Court considered whether resolutions constitute valid exercise of power - Held that resolutions can be law under Article 13 and valid regulatory action (Paras 8, 12). D) Education Law - Regulatory Authority - Expert Body Composition - Pharmacy Act, 1948, Section 3 - PCI argued its Central Council includes experts from pharmacy field, UGC, Medical Council, and government representatives - Court noted composition supports competence to make educational policy decisions - Held that expert body's decision on moratorium deserves deference (Para 6). E) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Restrictions - Article 19(6) - Burden of Proof - Institutions argued moratorium is absolute prohibition lacking nexus with object - PCI argued it prevents unemployment from mushrooming colleges - Court examined whether restriction is reasonable and has public interest nexus - Held that moratorium is reasonable restriction to maintain educational standards and prevent unemployment (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Pharmacy Council of India has the power under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 to impose a moratorium on opening new pharmacy colleges, and whether such moratorium violates the fundamental rights of institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts of Karnataka, Delhi, and Chhattisgarh and upheld the moratorium imposed by the Pharmacy Council of India as valid.
Law Points
- Regulatory power includes power to impose moratorium
- Fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g)
- Reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights
- Power to regulate includes power to prohibit
- Validity of resolutions as law under Article 13
- Duty of regulatory body to prevent mushrooming growth
