Court rules that administrative instructions cannot curtail fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) in absence of framed regulations under National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court quashed the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions' (NCAHP) communication that had rejected Parul University's application to establish a new physiotherapy college on the same campus as its existing institutions. The Court ruled that in the absence of any formal regulations or policies prohibiting the establishment of more than one college offering the same course within a single campus, the NCAHP's administrative instructions lacked legal validity and infringed upon the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, Parul University, a private university established under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, operates two physiotherapy colleges within its sprawling 200-acre campus. In August 2026, it applied to the Gujarat State Allied and Healthcare Council, under the aegis of the NCAHP, for permission to start a third physiotherapy college - Parul Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences - with an intake of 100 seats for the academic session 2026-27. Despite fulfilling all conditions, including submitting an Essentiality Certificate, the application was rejected by the NCAHP via a communication dated September 15, 2026. The rejection was based on an executive directive that prohibited establishing more than one college for the same allied healthcare profession within the same campus, pending the finalization of regulations on recognition of institutions.
The Court observed that this directive was not supported by any existing statutory regulations. The NCAHP itself acknowledged that regulations governing such matters were still under consideration. The Court emphasized that administrative or executive instructions cannot impose restrictions that curtail constitutional rights when the statutory framework is silent or under development. It distinguished the present case from precedent cases which allow administrative instructions only to fill gaps where rules are silent but must not override fundamental rights or existing statutory provisions.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy (2023) and the decision in Dr. Dayal Institute of Paramedical Technology v. State of Rajasthan (2026), the Court reiterated that permissions for starting new courses or institutions may be granted subject to conditions and interim arrangements until formal regulations are notified. The petitioner had complied with all such conditions as per the office order dated April 8, 2026, which allowed new courses to commence pending formal regulations.
The Court thus set aside the impugned communication, directed the respondents to take consequential action expeditiously within one week, and allowed the petitioner to proceed with admissions for the new physiotherapy college for the 2026-27 academic year. This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to due statutory processes and protects educational institutions from arbitrary administrative restrictions that violate constitutional freedoms.
Bottom Line:
Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 - In absence of framed regulations or policy, application for establishment of new physiotherapy college could not be rejected by administrative communication on ground that more than one college for same course should not operate in same campus - Executive instructions cannot curtail rights under Article 19(1)(g) when statutory framework is silent.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 Section 11(1)(a)
