Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and MR Shah, JJ has held that in the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail.

The Court was hearing the case wherein conflict and the dispute arose because despite refusal by the PCI, the AICTE increased the intake capacity in the respective institutions, which were not approved by the PCI.

The Court held that since the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) consists of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects connected with the education of pharmacy, therefore, under the statute, specialized persons in the field of pharmaceutical, pharmacy etc. shall be the members of the PCI.

Regarding the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), the Court said that only one member would be from the field of pharmacy and that too representative of PCI.

“Under the circumstances, the PCI is the body of experts connected with the subject of pharmacy and related subjects and therefore it will be in the larger interest and more particularly in the interest of education of pharmacy that PCI shall alone have the Jurisdiction in the field of pharmacy, rather than AICTE.”

The Court also took note of the fact that, both, the PCI and AICTE are the creature of the statute. Therefore, it is not at all healthy that the two regulators, both being Central authorities, can be permitted to fight for supremacy.

“The fight of supremacy between both the regulators is unhealthy for the education sector as well as the institutions to permit two regulators to function in the same field. Therefore also and more particularly when the PCI is consisting of the experts in the field of pharmacy and other related subjects, it is in the larger interest in the field of pharmacy that the PCI must be given the power to regulate in the field of pharmacy.”

It was, hence, held that the norms and regulations set by the PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act would have to be followed by the concerned institutions imparting education for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy, including the norms and regulations with respect to increase and/or decrease in intake capacity of the students and the decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy.

The Court, however, clarified that the present decision shall not affect those students admitted in the increased intake capacity and/or pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and/or final judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts. It, hence, directed PCI to give consequential benefit of registration to such students. However, at the same time, all pending applications for increase in intake capacity and/or for recognition and/or approval of course/institutions in the pharmacy shall be as per the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the regulations, if any, thereunder and as per the norms and regulations fixed by the PCI.

It further directed the concerned institutions who increased their intake capacity as approved by AICTE and their increase in intake capacity was not approved by PCI, shall apply afresh for increase in intake capacity and/or evening shift for the next academic year within a period of four weeks from today and their cases for increase in intake capacity and/or applications for recognition and/or applications for approval of the course or evening shift shall be considered by the PCI in accordance with the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and rules and regulations framed therein and the norms prescribed by the PCI.

[Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. SK Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 296, decided on 05.03.2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Deepak Gupta and Anirudhha Bose, JJ has held that norms and Regulations set by the Council of Architecture (CoA) and other specified authorities under the Architects Act, 1972 would have to be followed by an institution imparting education for degrees and diplomas in architecture.

The question before the Court was that whether the mandate of CoA or that of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) would prevail on the question of granting approval and related matters to an institution for conducting architectural education course, if there is any contradiction in the opinions of these two bodies.

Both of them are regulatory bodies constituted by Parliamentary legislations having power to approve or recognize and thereafter monitor working of such an institution. However, the Court held that

“so far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of architecture education is concerned, the Architects Act, 1972 shall prevail. AICTE will not be entitled to impose any regulatory measure in connection with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of architecture.”

The Court said that under both the statutes there are overlapping areas under which the respective Councils could make Regulations. Though these Acts, by themselves, do not come into direct conflict the inconsistencies have surfaced in implementing the power given to the Councils constituted under the respective enactments. It, however, noticed that

“The process of recognition and effect thereof are more expansive under the 1972 Act. All “authorities” require recognition by the Central Government to conduct any degree or diploma course in architecture education to qualify for being recognised qualification. The CoA under the said Act plays a key role in the process of recognition.”

It was also noticed that there is no exclusion or exemption of any institution from undergoing such recognition process except the subsisting ones at the time the Act became operational. The CoA has also wide monitoring power under Section 18 and 19 of the Act of every authority which grants recognized qualification under the said Act.

“The scheme of the Act thus demonstrates that lack of recognized qualification under the 1972 Act would in substance disentitle a person from being registered as an architect. He would not be able to legally represent himself as an architect in India.”

The Court, further, held that the CoA is not the ultimate decision-making authority, but it is the Central Government in relation to process of recognition of degree or diploma in architectural education or withdrawal thereof. Such decision is required to be taken after consultation with the CoA. But since CoA has been conferred with power to make regulations in relation to, inter-alia, recognition norms and monitoring of institutions imparting architectural education, CoA’s role in such process is critical.

On AICTE, the Court said that it’s he approval power is direct. But in the event AICTE’s norms come into conflict with that of CoA, any report or representation the CoA may make to the Central Government would be dependent upon the decision of the Central Government.

“The Central Government’s decision, taken under the provisions of the 1972 Act in such a case would obviously prevail, the latter being an authority superior to both the Councils constituted under the two statutes.”

The Court, hence, held that in respect of the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, the definition of “technical education” would have to be given such a construction and the word “architecture” should be treated to have been inapplicable in cases where the AICTE imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking technical education. It said,

“This construction of the definition clause is necessary as the external context requires it to prevent an unworkable outcome in implementation of the 1987 Act.”

[AICTE v. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1445, decided on 08.11.2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Writ petitions filed by petitioners, who had established Polytechnic colleges in the State after obtaining approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) under the AICTE Act, 1987, after the State refused to grant further approval, were allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising P.B. Suresh Kumar, J., also directing the State to accord sanction to the petitioners to start the Polytechnic colleges/course.

The contention of the State Government as regards not granting approval for the establishment of Polytechnic colleges despite the approval from the AICTE was that “there wasn’t any appreciable increase in scope for Polytechnic education in the State especially in the self financing sector and that the indiscriminate sanctioning of new self financing institutions would lead to a downward trend in the quality of education in the State.”

The question before the Court was with respect to the scope of the power of the State Government in matters dealing with the applications for grant of approval to start technical institutions/additional courses in the existing technical institutions even after approval from the AICTE. The Court discussed the scheme of the Act and stated that the State Government has to bring all objections to the notice of the AICTE and it is for the AICTE to take a decision as regards the objections. Such objections cannot be the basis for declining approval by the State Government.

It was held that “as far as the scope of polytechnic education is concerned … it has to be examined in the context of the requirements of the country as a whole” and not just the State. Also, given the importance being attributed to polytechnic education for skill development by the Central Government, the Court directed the State government to include names of the institutions in their online prospectus and was allowed to allot 50% seats in these colleges. [Chairman, SCMS College of Polytechnics v. State of Kerala, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 7841, decided on June 5, 2017]