Rajasthan HC Quashes Ban on New B.Pharm Colleges, Calls It Arbitrary and Unconstitutional
Rajasthan High Court
New Delhi: In a major reprieve for private pharmacy institutions, the Rajasthan High Court has struck down the State Government's blanket ban on granting No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for new B.Pharmacy colleges, declaring the move "arbitrary, discriminatory, and devoid of legal authority.'
Justice Sunil Beniwal, delivering a strongly worded judgment in Global Pharmacy College, Kuchaman City vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., held that the April 26, 2025, order “violates the fundamental rights of citizens” and was issued without legislative competence. The court categorically directed the government to issue the necessary NOC to the petitioner if all other statutory requirements are met.
Global Pharmacy College, managed by the Global Management and Technology Sansthan, had applied for an NOC and affiliation to start a B.Pharmacy degree course. Despite a favorable inspection report, the authorities failed to act, compelling the institution to move the court earlier. Although the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) granted provisional affiliation, the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) rejected the application, citing the absence of a State NOC.
Subsequently, the State Government issued an order on April 26, 2025, banning NOCs for all new B. Pharmacy colleges in Rajasthan, citing a “mushrooming” of unemployed pharmacy graduates. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the decision in court.
Also Read: PCI Restores Approval for 42 Pharmacy Colleges in Maharashtra for 2025-26 Admissions
Appearing for Global Pharmacy College, advocates Shreyansh Mardia and Mayank Rajpurohit argued that the ban targeted only private colleges, while government and private universities were still permitted to admit students to pharmacy courses. They asserted that this selective restriction was unconstitutional and violated Article 14’s guarantee of equality before the law.
They also contended that the order was passed without any empirical data or demographic study to support the claim of excess pharmacy graduates. Moreover, under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, neither the State Government nor the Pharmacy Council of India has the authority to impose such a ban without legislative sanction. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Pharmacy Council of India vs Rajeev College of Pharmacy (AIR 2022 SC 4321), they argued that any moratorium imposed through executive orders infringes the right to establish educational institutions guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Representing the State of Rajasthan, Additional Advocate General N.S. Rajpurohit, along with RUHS counsel Mahendra Bishnoi, maintained that the decision was a “conscious policy measure” taken in public interest after evaluating data from the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council. They argued that the State was empowered to regulate the establishment of new pharmacy colleges to maintain education quality and prevent oversaturation in the job market.
The State also cited the Supreme Court’s observations allowing regulatory bodies to assess whether additional institutions are needed in specific regions before granting approval.
The court identified three principal questions for determination:
Whether the State Government could impose such a ban through an executive order in the absence of legislative authority.
Whether restricting the ban to private colleges amounted to an arbitrary or discriminatory action.
Whether the justification of “mushrooming” of pharmacy graduates was sufficient to warrant a complete ban.
Justice Sunil Beniwal cited extensively from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pharmacy Council of India vs Rajeev College of Pharmacy (2022), which held that while reasonable restrictions may be imposed in public interest, such limitations must have statutory backing and cannot stem from mere executive instructions.
The court also referred to recent Allahabad High Court judgments that invalidated similar moratoriums on pharmacy and nursing colleges, emphasizing that State Governments have no jurisdiction to curb educational rights without a valid legislative framework.
Justice Beniwal noted that the Rajasthan Government’s action lacked legal competence and disproportionately targeted private institutions, making it both ultra vires and discriminatory. He observed that the State’s decision “violates the fundamental right to establish educational institutions” under Article 19(1)(g) and undermines the regulatory role of the Pharmacy Council of India.
Quashing the State’s ban, the High Court ruled:
“The impugned order dated 26.04.2025 restricting the petitioner – Institution is held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Needless to observe that as an outcome of the above, the necessary NOC is required to be issued to the petitioner-Institution if it otherwise fulfills the requisite criteria.”
The court further directed that the fee already deposited by Global Pharmacy College for the 2025–26 academic session be adjusted for the next session, recognizing that the delay was caused solely by the government’s unlawful action.
To view the official order, click the link below:
