The above case was transferred before the Honorable Supreme Court and leave granted in Article 136 of the Constitution. In all the above petitions, particular respondent-colleges approached the respective High Courts with the unjust act of imprimatur of a second shift by Pharmacy Council of India and limitation on the rising inlet of pupils for different pharmacy courses. Since the respective respondent colleges increased the admission of students, based upon the necessary authorization from the All India Council Of Technical Education, the following High Courts have permitted the colleges to proceed with an increasing number of students. The respective High Courts have inferred that All India Council Of Technical Education (AICTE) is the supreme Jurisdiction amongst. Namely, AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE decision will be given priority. By the interim order, The High Court allowed the respondent institutions to continue with the increased number of students in the colleges. Therefore the issue involved in the present case is regarding the applicability of The Pharmacy Act, 1948 or AICTE Act, 1987 about pharmacy subject, also covering the minimal standards of education to be qualified as a pharmacist, registration as a pharmacist, and other forthcoming professional conducts, etc.

1. Whether the ruling of Pharmacy Council of India or All India Council of Technical Education would supersede the question of permitting the approval related matters to any institution for controlling pharmacy education course if any conflict or dispute arises in the viewpoints of the respective bodies?
2. Whether Article 372 of The Constitution of India, 1949 will apply to the present case?

In the following case, The Supreme Court was of the view that the decision above and as noticed hereinabove, The Pharmacy Act is unique in the area of pharmacy and it is a complete code in itself in the field of pharmacy; the Pharmacy act shall be given priority over the All India Council of Technical Education Act, as All India Council of Technical Education is a general statute dealing with technical education. Therefore, the submissions on behalf of All India Council of Technical Education and concerned respondent colleges that AICTE ACT is a subsequent law and under section 2(g) of the act includes “Pharmacy” as a part of “Technical Education”. So it can be said to be an “implied repeal” and cannot be allowed. The Pharmacy Act is the Special Act, and it must prevail over the AICTE Act. Pharmacy Council of India consists of experts in the field of pharmacy and subjects related to pharmacy. And the members of the Pharmacy Council have more knowledge in the field of pharmacy and AICTE has only one representative from Pharmacy Council India. The apex court was of the view that PCI is the body of professionals in the field of pharmacy. And in the larger interest of education of pharmacy PCI shall have sole Jurisdiction.

The dependency placed on Article 372 of The Constitution by the counsels represent AICTE and respondent colleges concerned, in the beginning, it is essential to pen down that even as per Article 372, until and unless a statute enacted before the enactment of the constitution is particularly repealed if it remains to operation. In the present case though AICTE ACT has no specific repeal of Pharmacy Act, 1948 and also there is no implied repeal. So, reliance placed upon Article 372 of The Constitution is misconstrued.

The Apex court was of observation concerning students already being granted with admission before the order passed by this court and respective High Courts concerned. The dispute arose because of denial from PCI; the AICTE allowed to increase the admissions in respondent colleges. And the present decision by a court shall not hamper the education of students admitted to increasing capacity and allow these students to appear before the examination and get themselves registered as a pharmacist. The pending applications left for increased admissions shall need approval or permission of PCI as per the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The applications for approval of evening shift shall be viewed by PCI by the Pharmacy Act, 1948 norms.

Honourable Supreme Court in the present case held that decisions of Pharmacy Council of India would prevail over All India Council of Technical Education only in the field of “pharmacy”.