Rajasthan HC Quashes 'Arbitrary' B.Pharm NOC Ban, Citing Executive Overreach and Discrimination

JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – In a significant ruling on the limits of executive power in educational policy, the Rajasthan High Court has struck down a state government order that imposed a blanket ban on issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to private colleges for establishing new B.Pharmacy courses. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sunil Beniwal in the case of Global Pharmacy College v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. , firmly establishes that such a sweeping prohibition, enacted via an executive order and selectively applied to private institutions, is both without legislative competence and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.

The Court held that the state's action was an "arbitrary and discriminatory" exercise of power, lacking the necessary legislative foundation under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Consequently, the High Court has directed the state to reconsider the petitioner's application for an NOC, provided all other eligibility criteria are met.

---

Background of the Dispute: A Policy of Prohibition

The legal challenge arose after a private institution, Global Pharmacy College, applied to the State of Rajasthan for the requisite NOC to start a Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharmacy) course. While its application was pending, the state government issued a pivotal order on April 26, 2025. This order effectively halted the growth of private pharmacy education by imposing a "blanket ban" on the grant of NOCs to any private college intending to commence a B.Pharmacy program or establish a new institution for the same.

Crucially, this prohibition was not universal. Government-run colleges and universities, as well as private universities, were exempt, allowing them to continue or establish new pharmacy courses. The state justified this policy by citing a need to prevent the "mushroom growth of unemployed B-Pharma degree holders." However, this rationale was presented without the support of any empirical data or comprehensive study.

Aggrieved by the state's order, which effectively blocked its path, the petitioner college approached the High Court, challenging the constitutional and statutory validity of the ban.

Petitioner's Arguments: A Two-Pronged Attack on Legality and Equality

The petitioner's counsel, led by Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, launched a robust challenge centered on two fundamental legal principles: the lack of legislative authority and the violation of the right to equality.

1. Lack of Legislative Competence: It was forcefully argued that the state government, acting in its executive capacity, had no power to impose such a ban. The petitioner contended that the governing statute, the Pharmacy Act of 1948, vests regulatory authority in the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) but confers no power upon either the PCI or the state government to enforce a complete prohibition on the establishment of new colleges. The executive order was, therefore, an act of ultra vires —an action taken beyond its legal authority—and a "colourable exercise of power."

2. Violation of Article 14: The petitioner highlighted the discriminatory nature of the ban. By targeting only private colleges affiliated with universities while exempting government colleges and private universities, the state had created an unfair classification without any rational justification. This selective application, it was argued, amounted to hostile discrimination and failed the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The High Court's Analysis: Upholding Constitutional and Statutory Limits

Justice Sunil Beniwal's judgment meticulously dissected the state's action, ultimately finding it untenable on both legal fronts.

On Legislative Competence:

The Court began by affirming the principle that executive policy decisions must operate within the framework of the law. Referring to the Supreme Court's precedent in Pharmacy Council of India vs. Rajeev College of Pharmacy & Ors. , which scrutinized a similar executive action, the High Court reiterated that a ban of this nature can only be imposed if the state possesses clear legislative competence to do so.

The Court observed that under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, no provision empowers the state government to unilaterally impose a blanket ban on issuing NOCs. While the PCI has the authority to regulate standards and approve institutions, even it cannot enforce an absolute prohibition by an executive resolution.

In a key passage, the judgment stated:

“True it is that the State Government has authority to take policy decision, however, such decision has to be rational and cannot be taken without having jurisdiction to do so. The State Government can, in no manner, without deriving authority through proper legislation impose a blanket ban on grant of NOC, that too, taking only the private colleges under the umbrella of such ban.”

This finding underscores a critical check on executive power: policy goals, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot be pursued through means that bypass the legislative process. The state’s attempt to regulate the education sector through an executive fiat was deemed an overreach that could not "stand the touchstone of law."

On Arbitrariness and Discrimination:

The Court then turned to the Article 14 challenge, finding the state’s differential treatment of private colleges indefensible. The state failed to provide any compelling justification for why the perceived problem of graduate unemployment was unique to students from private colleges and not those from government institutions or private universities.

Justice Beniwal highlighted the absurd outcome of the policy: while a private college was barred from starting a B.Pharmacy course, a private university next door would be free to do so. This created an arbitrary and irrational distinction between similarly situated entities. The Court noted that such selective prohibition leads to an unequal playing field and serves no discernible public purpose connected to the stated objective.

The judgment concluded that the selective ban was a clear instance of arbitrary state action, rendering the government's order unconstitutional.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling carries significant implications for educational policy and administrative law in Rajasthan and beyond:

• Reinforcement of Separation of Powers: The judgment serves as a strong reminder that the executive branch cannot legislate through administrative orders. Major policy decisions that restrict fundamental rights, including the right to establish educational institutions, must be rooted in clear statutory authority.
• Scrutiny of 'Policy Decisions': It affirms that the judiciary will not hesitate to strike down government policies that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or lack a rational basis, even if they are framed as measures for the public good. The "mushroom growth" argument was dismissed as an unsubstantiated claim, emphasizing the need for data-driven policymaking.
• Level Playing Field in Education: By striking down the discriminatory ban, the High Court has championed a level playing field between public and private educational institutions. It prevents the state from creating protectionist barriers that favor its own institutions at the expense of private enterprise without valid legal reasoning.

The Court allowed the petition and directed the state to consider the petitioner's application for an NOC on its merits, in accordance with the law, provided all other necessary conditions are fulfilled. This decision not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a vital precedent against executive overreach in the regulation of professional education.