It was clarified by the court that it has not gone into the question “whether the imposition of a moratorium is otherwise ultra vires the powers of the PCI.”
but since the petitioners suggested that the Court may prescribe guidelines for any further consideration by the authorities.
Apart from the prima facie inconsistency in the PCI’s stand regarding the moratorium, it made the following other observations intended as guidelines:
– Regulatory decisions which have far reaching consequences upon citizens require scientific study and supporting data. The regulator must have sufficient material to support its decisions and correlate the objective of the decision with the material before it. The expectation is not of comprehensive or granular empirical data in every case, but of material which can demonstrate the reasonableness of the assumptions made and the decision taken. While acknowledging that the regulatory bodies are comprised of experts with relevant experience, it is necessary to emphasise that sufficient factual basis of the decision must be available, so that the authority is able to show due application of mind.
– The exemptions granted by the impugned communication dated 09.09.2019 are also, by their very nature, antithetical to the objectives of the moratorium. They must therefore bear close scrutiny. Even where such classifications are required, they must be reasonable and have a rational nexus with the objective of the decision maker. In the present case, for example, the exemption granted to the States with less than 50 pharmacy colleges is independent of the size of the State. Consequently, it bears no correlation to the pharmacist-to-population ratio prevailing in the State, or to any other metric which has been used to justify the moratorium in the first place. Similarly, the exemptions granted to existing institutions for increase in number of seats is also unsupported by any material on record.
– As a matter of practice, regulatory bodies entrusted with decisions which affect the establishment of institutions, such as the present case, would do well to consider whether it is possible to make their decisions known some time before they come into effect. Although Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioners have not laid any factual basis for their argument that they have expended any amount by way of infrastructure, such grievances can be minimised if such far-reaching decisions are made effective after a reasonable lapse of time, rather than immediately upon announcement.”
Source: Barandbench
