The Rajasthan High Court has struck down the State Government’s April 26 order imposing a blanket ban on granting No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for starting new B. Pharmacy colleges.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the State lacked legislative competence to issue such a prohibition through an executive order and that the decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The petitioner Global Pharmacy College, managed by the Global Management and Technology Sansthan, had applied for permission to start a B.Pharmacy course for the academic year 2025–26. After inspection, a favorable report was submitted in August 2024. However, the institution’s application was later rejected by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) due to the absence of an NOC from the State Government.
The rejection followed the State’s April 26, 2025, order that imposed a statewide ban on issuing NOCs for new B.Pharmacy colleges, citing “mushrooming growth” of institutions and an alleged oversupply of pharmacy graduates.
Challenging this order, the petitioner argued that the State’s action was discriminatory, as it applied only to private colleges while government and private universities remained unaffected.
Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that the State’s ban applied solely to private colleges affiliated with Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), amounting to “arbitrary discrimination” under Article 14. The ban lacked empirical data to justify claims of excessive pharmacy graduates. The Government had no legislative authority under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, to impose such restrictions. The move was contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy (2022), which held that executive bodies cannot impose blanket prohibitions on establishing educational institutions without statutory backing. The ban was issued under political or administrative pressure without a scientific study or demographic assessment of regional needs — particularly in Nagaur district, where no other B.Pharmacy institute exists.
The Additional Advocate General argued that the order was a “policy decision” taken after deliberations chaired by the Health Minister. The ban was justified to control the “uncontrolled mushrooming” of pharmacy colleges and address the problem of unemployment among pharmacy graduates. Data from the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council supported the decision. The restriction was in the larger public interest and did not violate constitutional provisions.
The bench of Justice Beniwal rejected the State’s justification, ruling that the State Government has no legislative competence under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, to impose such a ban. A blanket prohibition through executive orders violates the fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g). Such a restriction must be enacted through legislation, not administrative instruction. The ban’s selective application to private colleges while exempting government and university-run institutions was “discriminatory and arbitrary.” Policy concerns like overproduction of graduates must be addressed through rational regulatory measures, not by curbing rights through unilateral executive orders.
The Court drew parallels with recent rulings of the Allahabad High Court, which similarly quashed bans imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government on pharmacy and nursing colleges, deeming them unconstitutional and beyond state authority.
The High Court set aside the State Government’s April 26, 2025, order.
The court directed the authorities to issue NOC to Global Pharmacy College if it fulfills the statutory norms under the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
The court ordered that the fees deposited by the petitioner for 2025–26 be adjusted toward the next academic session since the admission process for the current year has concluded.
Case Details
Case Title: Global Pharmacy College Versus The State Of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10763/2025
Date: 14/10/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocates Shreyansh Mardia and Mayank Rajpurohit
Counsel For Respondent: N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Read More: Jharkhand HC Grants Bail To Person Accused Of GST Evasion Worth Rs. 31 Crores For Different FYs
