The Supreme Court, sitting as a partial working days bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice K Vinod Chandran, expressed strong disapproval of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for its persistent failure to adhere to the timeline governing approvals, affiliations, counselling and admissions of pharmacy institutions. The bench observed that the regulator’s repeated requests for extensions despite the existence of a court‑prescribed academic calendar that has been in force since the decision in Parshavanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education (2012).

The Court noted that the 2012 judgment laid down a uniform schedule to ensure that academic sessions commence on time and to prevent delayed admissions that impair educational standards. Despite the schedule having remained operative for nearly fourteen years, the PCI has approached the Court almost every year seeking relaxation of the deadlines. In the present miscellaneous application, the Council sought yet another extension of the approval schedule for pharmacy institutions, even though an extension had been granted for the preceding year.

During the hearing, counsel for the PCI attempted to justify the delay by citing administrative difficulties and the extension previously allowed for filing Standard Inspection Format (SIF) applications until 28 February 2026. The bench remained unconvinced, questioning why the Court should continue to grant indulgence when the timeline has been known since 2012. It remarked that the regulator’s conduct raises doubts about its administration and suggested a possible nexus with private colleges, stating that the problem lies in the regulator’s failure to follow the prescribed schedule.

The Court further rejected the reliance on the COVID‑19 pandemic as a basis for continued extensions, observing that the pandemic’s impact cannot be said to have a cascading effect over the next four years and that the situation has now normalised. It emphasised that regulatory authorities themselves are responsible for the deterioration in educational standards when they fail to observe court‑mandated timelines.

While expressing serious dissatisfaction, the Court agreed to extend the schedule for the current academic year as a final indulgence, making clear that such relaxation is exceptional and will not be repeated. To secure future compliance, the bench directed the PCI to file an affidavit within three days undertaking that it will adhere to the prescribed timelines from the next academic year onward. The matter has been listed for further hearing next week.

The observations underscore the Court’s view that regulatory inefficiency undermines the integrity of the academic calendar and places an unjust burden on students and institutions. By insisting on strict adherence to the 2012 schedule, the Supreme Court seeks to restore discipline in the approval and admission processes for pharmacy education across the country.