W.P.(C) Nos. 3117, 3174 & 3390 of 2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Mohammed Nias C.P.
- Judgment Date
- 2025-03-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- These writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. The court held that for institutions already running Pharm D courses with PCI approval and affiliated to KUHS, AICTE approval is not required; AICTE’s 2018-19 para 2.11.2 does not apply to such institutions. The decision relies on the Supreme Court’s Toshniwal judgment, which stated that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail for pharmacy education, and PCI norms under that Act must be followed by such institutions.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions allowed; AICTE approval not required for Pharm D programs already approved by PCI and affiliated to KUHS; 2018-19 AICTE process not applicable to these institutions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- KERALA STATE SELF FINANCING PHARMACY COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (KSSPCMA)
- Fr. Jose Mailadiath, Administrator, Nirmala College of Pharmacy
- Prem Krishnan P. P., Managing Trustee, KTN College of Pharmacy
- Unneenkutty P. P., General Secretary, Grace College of Pharmacy
- Sr. Roger MSJ, Chairperson, Dharmagiri St. Joseph's Hospital Trust
- Dr. Preeja G. Pillai, Principal, KVM College of Pharmacy
- Fr. Varghese Pathadan, Director, St. James College of Pharmaceutical Sciences
- Managing Trustee, Devaki Amma Memorial Trust (Manu)
- Director, Dale View College of Pharmacy & Research Centre
- Dr. Suja C., Principal, Crescent College of Pharmaceutical Sciences
- Rev. Dr. Mathew Mazhavan Cheril, Director, Pushpagiri Group of Institutions (Academics & Research)
- Dr. B. Sreedhareen, Principal, Nehru College of Pharmacy
- Fr. Mathew Kuruvilla Eruthipattu, Manager, Nazareth College of Pharmacy
- Sudha M., General Secretary, EZHUTHACHAN National Academy
- Trustee, National College of Pharmacy (Manassery)
Respondents
- All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
- Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS)
- Pharmacy Council of India (PCI)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P. Ravindran (Sr.)
- • Aparna Rajan
- • Sreedhar Ravindran
- • Liza Megha Cyriac
- • Lakshmi Ramadas
Counsels for Respondents
- • Jaykar K.S.
- • Assistant Solicitor General
- • G. Balu
- • M. Ramya Ramachandran
- • S. Dhanya (D-418)
- • R. Anil Babu
- • Sajith Kumar V.
- • Mini Gopinath
- • Liza Meghan Cyriac (appearing for AICTE)
- • Lakshmi Ramadas (appearing for AICTE)
- • Sreedhar Ravindran (appearing for AICTE)
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ petitions challenge AICTE's requirement of AICTE approval for Pharm D programs run with PCI approval and affiliated to KUHS in Kerala. The petitioners, comprising a professional association and several college trustees and principals, contend that institutions already running Pharm D courses with PCI recognition and affiliated to KUHS should not need AICTE approval under para 2.11.2 of AICTE Approval Process Handbook 2018-19. They rely on the primacy of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the norms and regulations laid down by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), arguing that those standards govern pharmacy education and that AICTE approval would be outside the prescribed regulatory regime for such courses. The respondents—AICTE, KUHS, and PCI—defend AICTE’s supervisory role and the applicability of AICTE’s handbook to expansion or modification of programs. The court, citing the Supreme Court in Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy & Others (2021) 10 SCC 657, held that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 prevails in pharmacy education and PCI norms under that Act govern such institutions; AICTE’s 2018-19 process cannot override them. Accordingly, the petitions were allowed, clarifying the hierarchical primacy of the Pharmacy Act over AICTE Handbook for the Pharm D domain in Kerala.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail; norms and regulations under the Pharmacy Act (PCI) must be followed by institutions imparting pharmacy education; PCI decisions shall be followed by such institutions.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners submitted that the authority of AICTE does not extend to regulate Pharm D programs already running with PCI recognition and affiliated to KUHS, and that AICTE’s para 2.11.2 2018-19 Handbook has no application to such institutions. They argued that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and PCI norms govern pharmacy education, including intake decisions, and that PCI decisions must be followed by institutions offering pharmacy degrees and diplomas. They relied on the Supreme Court’s Toshniwal decision to contend that PCI norms prevail over AICTE processes for pharmacy education.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that AICTE’s regulatory regime applies to all professional education institutions; AICTE approvals may be needed for expansions or modifications under the 2018-19 Handbook. They argued that AICTE and PCI together regulate pharmacy education and that the AICTE framework is applicable to ensure uniform standards across the sector. They emphasized the need to prevent regulatory fragmentation and to preserve statutory hierarchy in higher education regulation.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pharmacy Council Of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy & Others | (2021) 10 SCC 657 | Positive | The court extracts and relies on the Toshniwal judgement to conclude that the Pharmacy Act prevails and PCI norms govern pharmacy education, superseding AICTE requirements for Pharm D programs in this context. |
| Association of Management of Private Colleges vs All India Council for Technical Education & Others | (2013) 8 SCC 271 | Mentioned Only | Exhibited in the Appendix; the judgment cites it as a related authority but does not rely on it as a binding basis for the decision. |
| Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture & Others vs State of Maharashtra & Others | WP(C) No. 594/2004 | Mentioned Only | Listed as an exhibit; no direct application or holding cited in the Kerala judgment. |
| Civil Appeal No.3797 of 1996 | Civil Appeal No.3797/1996 | Mentioned Only | Included as an exhibit; not discussed or distinguished within the judgment's reasoning. |
| Sharmishtha Das vs Union of India & Others | (2005) 2 Delhi High Court 2669/2005 | Mentioned Only | Listed in exhibits; not evaluated or distinguished in the judgment. |
| SLP No. 26936/2004 | SLP(C) No. 26936/2004 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit reference; no treatment or quotation in the judgment. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C) Nos. 3117, 3174 & 3390 of 2018 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.