Central Information Commission
Aloke Dey vs Delhi Pharmacy Council on 8 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DELPC/A/2017/195685
Date of Hearing : 21.06.2018
Date of Interim Decision : 21.06.2018
Date of Final Decision : 01.10.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Aloke Dey
Respondent : PIO/Registrar-cum-Secretary,
Pharmacy Council of India,
Combined Council's Building
Through: Ms. Archana Mudgal-
Registrar-cum-Secretary
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.08.2016
PIO replied on : 05.09.2016
First Appeal filed on : 03.09.2016
First Appellate Order on : 01.11.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 30.12.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 27.08.2016, the appellant sought information as under:-
"...State wise present number of renewed (valid) pharmacists"
And " numbers of State wise valid (renewed upto 31.03.2016) registered pharmacists (in different categories) in India."
Ms. Archana Mudgal, Registrar-cum-Secretary vide letter dated 05.09.2016 has furnished the State-wise data of registered Pharmacists as forwarded by State Pharmacy Council to Pharmacy Council of India.
Page 1 of 10Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.09.2016. Prof. M.D. Karvekar, FAA vide order dated 01.11.2016 decided the appeal upholding the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present. Appellant is assisted by a member of the State Pharmacy Council. Appellant states that the data provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory since the category-wise data is absent. In view of some of the information provided, the appellant has expressed doubts about the veracity and correctness of the data supplied by Pharmacy Council. After detailing the various discrepancies found from the information provided by respondent, the appellant once again emphasised that he seeks accurate data from the Respondent - both State wise and category wise. The appellant has submitted that he has sought the information in larger public interest because the proximity and dependence of a consumer of health care is deeper and more intimate with that of a pharmacist than a physician. Thus it is very important to ensure that minimum educational standards are maintained while registering the pharmacists.
Respondent explained that the basic role of the Pharmacy Council of India is that of a pharmacy educationist regulatory body. The main objective of the Respondent Council is to regulate the Pharmacy Education in the Country for the purpose of registration of individuals as qualified pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act. Primarily the Council is responsible for the regulation of the profession and practice of Pharmacy. The Pharmacy Council governed by the Pharmacy Act thus discharges critical functions like:
a) prescribing minimum standard of education required for qualifying as a pharmacist;
b) Framing of Education Regulations prescribing the conditions to be fulfilled by the institutions seeking approval of the PCI for imparting education in pharmacy;
c) Ensuring uniform implementation of the educational standards through- out the country (Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act) Some other functions of the Council include:
d) Inspection of Pharmacy Institutions seeking approval under the Pharmacy Act to verify availability of the prescribed norms.
e) Approving the course of study and examination for pharmacists etc. and Page 2 of 10 And Most importantly,
f) To maintain Central Register of Pharmacists, in terms of provisions of the Section 15A of the Pharmacy Act) Thus the names of Approved Colleges and Pharmacists qualified from Approved such Approved Colleges is available on the website of the Pharmacy Council.
Now embarking upon the question of registered pharmacists in the country, the Respondent submitted that they are wholly dependent on the data provided to them by the State Pharmacy Council/s about the registration of pharmacists done by them. This data used to be sent by the respective State Pharmacy Council from all over the country in the form of a CD, which used to be updated in the databank of PCI. However, now in view of updated software, each registration done by the State is automatically updated in the data bank of PCI. However, the format in which each of the State Pharmacy Council enters the particulars while registering a pharmacist, is not uniform. Resultantly, the data available with the Pharmacy Council is not such that the same can be availed in category wise format.
Interim Decision: 21.06.2018 After hearing the detailed submissions of the parties, the Commission notes that considering the gravity of the issue raised and the averments articulated by the Respondent, it will be imperative to analyse the facts in greater detail. Accordingly, the Commission grants two weeks' time to the appellant to submit a brief synopsis of his objections to the information received from PCI, as cited by him during the hearing. Appellant must mark a copy of the same to the Respondent.
Respondent shall submit a rebuttal to the appellant's objections within two weeks thereafter and also state the following: i) what approval PCI gives for the registration of the pharmacist/s; ii) problems faced by the PCI in maintaining the accuracy of data received from the State Pharmacy Council/s;
iii) steps taken to eliminate the inaccuracies in the data.
The Commission shall decide the future course upon completion of these pleadings.
Final Decision: 01.10.2018
1. Pursuant to the above decision, both parties have submitted their respective submissions, which have been summarised as follows:
Page 3 of 10Remark/objection made by Shri Aloke Response of the PCI Dey letter dtd. 4.7.2018 Since the Registrar of PCI has not noted the The Registrar of the PCI maintains fact in her reply that they are incapable of the data of registered pharmacists maintaining the data as requested as per the based on the data received from Act even repeated reminder for actual data, itthe State Pharmacy Councils. The may be construed that knowingly they have Central Public Information Officer provided the incomplete thereby false data to (CPIO), Pharmacy Council of India misguide and harass the applicant. provides information to the citizens of India as mandated under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information given to Shri Aloke Dey in response to his application/appeal is strictly in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 i.e. the information as available in the Pharmacy Council of India. His observations regarding in-
capability of maintaining data, mis-guiding and harassing the applicant are totally false untrue and uncalled for.
Reason1: A single reply could not satisfy two Reason 1-Response different queries where the categorized data Shri Aloke Dey vide online are absent. application dt. 29.08.2016 sought information about the state-wise number of renewed (valid) Pharmacists. The PCI sent the state-wise information vide letter dt. 5.9.2016, Shri Dey again sent an online application on 30.08.2016 seeking information regarding the number of state-wise valid (renewed upto 31.3.2016) registered pharmacists (in different categories) in India. The Council responded that the information is already given vide letter dt. 5.9.2016. It may be stated in this connection that categorization of registered pharmacists, if any, is done by the State Pharmacy Councils and not by the PCI Page 4 of 10 Reason 2: The data is not provided as the Reason 2-Response number of valid/renewed pharmacists but Renewal/deletion of registration of may be the total number of pharmacists pharmacists is done by the State registered till date without excluding those Pharmacy Council u/s 34 and 36 which are omitted. of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The PCI maintains the data on the basis of data supplied by the State Pharmacy Councils and it has no authority to include or omit the names of pharmacists of its own.
Reason 3: The data for Chandigarh, Reason 3 to 6 Telegana, Manipur, Jammu & Kashmir, The data as available was Sikkim, Andaman & Nikobar are not featured included in the list. The Pharmacy in the list. Act, 1948 does not extend to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Reason 4: At least 7 state-wise data (Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Lakshdwip, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal) are exactly the same as compare to May 2002 data provide by PCI to the Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, Directorate General of Health Services, Govt. of India (www.cbhidghs.nic.in) even after a considerable period of 14 years.
Reason 5: With reference to the May 2002 data, at least 4 state- wise data are reduced dramatically even after 14 years of time span when population, education and required of Health Professionals are actually increased substantially:
State Arun- Karnata Mizoram Tamilna
achal ka du
As on 347 71736 382 101240
May
2002
As on 279 50537 330 58466
19.8.2
016
Reduc -68 -21199 -52 -42774
ed
Numb
er
Reason 6: In the website of the Government of West Bengal (www.wbhealth.gov.in) the valid (renewed/active) pharmacist data as Page 5 of 10 on 31.3.2016 duly supplied by the State Pharmacy Council of WB featured as 33,910 where as PCI data shows a figure of 89630.
Reason 7: Reason 7 - Response In reply dated 22.8.2014 to an RTI The PCI relies on the data supplied Application, the WBPC declared that as on by the State Pharmacy Councils 31.3.2014 there is total renewed number of and has no reason to disbelieve pharmacist is 23,698, where A-Category is the information given by a 9,264 B-Category is only 17 and D-Category statutory body. Categorisation of is 14,417. But the PCI data shows in toal Pharmacists, if any, is done by the 89,630 as on 19.8.2016 which is not State Govt/SPCs u/s 46 of the reasonable at any stretch of imagination. Pharmacy Act, 1948.
According to the tables from 1987 to 2016 circulated by the Govt. WB there is maximum addition of registered pharmacist in a year is 1,267. So, in a span of only two years of time the number of renewed/valid pharmacists of 23,698 could not reach upto 89,630.
Annexure-B a)-
a) The First Heading of the Act says: An (i) The preamble of the Pharmacy
Act to regulate the profession of Act, 1948 is reproduced below:-
pharmacy. The copy of the Central "Whereas it is expedient to make
Register as published in the Gazette of better provision for the regulation
India (Sec. 15A (4) is not posted on the of the profession and practise of website. pharmacy and for that purpose to As per the website, there are 33 State constitute Pharmacy Councils:
Pharmacy Councils. But only 28 have (ii) The 73rd CC (September, 2004) been provided in reply to my request. has resolved as under:-
Resolution 01.073.142:- Consideration of draft Executive order regarding publication of Central Register in the Gazette.
---------------------
(15-4/2001(Pt.A)-PCI) (18.8/2004-PCI) 142.1 The latest information on record was placed and considered.
142.2 It was decided to
approve the following
"Executive Order"
Page 6 of 10
regarding Central Register
for publication in the
Gazette of India-
"As required under section
15-A (4) of the Pharmacy
Act, 1948, the Pharmacy
Council of India has
compiled the data of
registered Pharmacy
Councils. The said data is
kept in the office of the
Pharmacy Council of India
at the following address
besides respective State
Pharmacy Councils for
reference of the public-
Pharmacy Council of India
Combined Councils‟ of
Building, Temple Lane,
Kotla Road,
Aiwan-E-Ghalib Marg,
New Delhi-11002"
(iii) The data as available
was provided to Shri Aloke
Dey.
b) Sec. 34(20, Sec 36 & Sec 37 speaks about b) Agreed
registered pharmacist removal from and restoration to register by the PCI. So, the register is basically dynamic and not static.
c) Sec. 15 A (2): Each State Council shall c) Agreed. supply to the central Council five copies of the register for the State as soon as may be Further the Executive order of after the first day of April of each year, and the Central Council of the PCI the Registrar of each State Council, shall on pre-page may please be inform the Central Council, without delay, referred to. all additions to, and other amendments in the register for the State made from time to time.
Production of a copy of the register of relevant date as published in the Gazette of India is essentially solicited for evidence.
d) Two applications were made under RTI d)Agreed Act dated 2 9.8.2016 & 30.8.2016 as Page 7 of 10 under:-
1. State wise present number of renewed (valid) pharmacist.
2. Number of state wise valid (renewed upto 31.3.2016) registered pharmacists (in different categories).
e) 1. „Various states‟ does not construe „all e)Agreed states‟ The PCI depends on the data
2. It is doubtful that all featured data are forwarded by the State Pharmacy forwarded by state councils as on Councils. 19.8.2016 despite the stipulation „without delay after the first day of April‟. All State Councils are supposed to forward the data as on 31st March
f) It is the constitutional duty of PCI as f) A duty has been cast on the enumerated in the Pharmacy Act to provide Pharmacy Council of India by the actual data to the applicant. The indicationRight to Information Act, 2005 to about incomplete or misleading information provide the available information is depicted in a separate sheet. to an applicant subject to certain restriction.
g) Both the information given by the CPIO, PCI g) The details of the First Appellate do not have any information about the First Authority, PCI under the RTI Act, Appellate Authority. But the attached copy 2005 are already posted on the (37961-62) of letter speaks otherwise. Council‟s website.
2. The Respondents have further elaborated that the registration of persons as pharmacists is regulated under specific provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 specifically the Section 15A, 15B, 32(2), 33, 34,35,36, 37,39,43,46. Furthermore, the Respondent-PCI has stated that information held by them have been provided bona fide to the appellant, emphasising that State Pharmacy Councils are statutory bodies holding the relevant information, as sought by the appellant. The Registrar/Secretary, PCI has also informed that the State Pharmacy Councils established under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by the State Govts. do not fall under the administrative control of the Pharmacy Council of India.
3. Apart from the above response/s, the Respondent has further submitted as follows:
"....5. The position with regard to the queries raised by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner is as under:-
i) What approval PCI gives for the registration of the pharmacist/s:Page 8 of 10
The registration of persons as pharmacist is done by the State Pharmacy Councils u/s 33 read with 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The procedure for registration is governed by the rules made by the respective State Government u/s 46(2) (g)(i)(j)(k)(kk) of the said Act. One of the conditions for registration as pharmacist is that the person should have passed an examination or possesses a qualification in pharmacy which is approved by the Pharmacy Council of India u/s 12 or 14 of Pharmacy Act. Section 32(2) of the Act specifically provides that a person shall be entitled for registration as a pharmacist only when he has passed an approved examination and as per section 2(b) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, "approved" means approved by the Central Council u/s 12 or Section 14 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Hence, for registration as a pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, candidate should pass a course of study and examination in pharmacy approved u/s 12 or 14 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 approved by the Pharmacy Council of India.
ii) problems faced by the PCI in maintaining the accuracy of data received from the State Pharmacy Council/s;
a) Under the Pharmacy Act, registration of pharmacist is done by the State Pharmacy Council constituted u/s 19 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
b) u/s 46 of the Pharmacy Act (Chapter IV), the State Govt. is empowered to make rules to be notified in the official gazette to carry out the purpose of chapter III, IV and V of the Pharmacy Act. Hence the procedure for registration of pharmacist is governed by the rules made by the respective State Govts. u/s 46(2) (g)(i)(j)(k)(kk) of the Pharmacy Act.
c) Section 15 A (2) requires that each State Council, shall inform the Central Council, without delay, all additions to, and other amendments in, the Register for the State made from time to time.
d) However, the State Pharmacy Councils do not furnish the information on time despite repeated pursuance by the Council. The CPI is not required to cross check the data so furnished and relies on the facts given by the State Pharmacy Councils which are statutory bodies themselves.
iii) steps taken to eliminate the inaccuracies in the data It is the statutory responsibility of the State Pharmacy Council to maintain the register of pharmacist u/s 46(2) (k) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. However, the PCI is in the process of introducing Pharmacy Registration Tracking System (PRTS) in which any registration made/renewed/ deleted/added shall automatically Page 9 of 10 be entered in the Central Register online. The MOU has been signed with NIC in this regard. The Council is also proposing to introduce a uniform registration certificate to be followed by all the State Pharmacy Councils to maintain the uniformity.
From the above detailed submissions, the Commission notes that all available and relevant information, held by the Respondent-PCI have been duly made available to the appellant. PCI has clarified its position about registration of persons as pharmacist, corroborating the submissions with the appropriate provisions of law viz. the Pharmacy Act, 1948. While it is noted that procedure for registration of pharmacists is governed by the rules made by the respective State Govts. u/s 46(2) (g)(i)(j)(k)(kk) of the Pharmacy Act, the introduction of futuristic measures like Pharmacy Registration Tracking System (PRTS) for online registration/renewal/ deletion/addition of every entry in the Central Register and the introduction of uniform registration certificate to be followed by all the State Pharmacy Councils to maintain the uniformity are welcome initiatives by the Pharmacy Council of India.
The Commission is satisfied with the explanation and submissions of the Respondent-Pharmacy Council of India and arrives at the decision that no further information can be provided by the Respondent-PCI.
The appeal is thus disposed of with no further directions.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 10 of 10