A section of members within the Pharmacy Council of India’s (PCI) Central Council (CC) has voiced concerns over alleged irregularities in the election process leading to the appointment of the current president.  Directing their accusations toward Registrar-cum-Secretary Anil Mittal, citing various clauses of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, they have now sought clarification on the perceived discrepancies. The present PCI president is Montu Patel.

Mittal, serving as both the administrative head and Treasurer of the Council, is accused of allegedly violating election norms in favor of the incumbent President, who, according to the dissenting members, lacked the prerequisite membership in the Central Council to contest for the top post.

The PCI’s Central Council, which comprises representatives from diverse entities including the UGC, and Central and State Governments, serves as the regulatory authority overseeing the pharmacy profession nationwide.

Central to the dissenting members’ grievances is the alleged dual membership of the current President from both the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and the state of Gujarat, contravening established protocols. They have alleged that election norms have been violated by Mittal in favor of the incumbent President who, according to them, was not even a member of the Central Council, mandatory eligibility to contest for the top post.

 “Miital has violated all protocols by allowing such a person to contest the elections whose membership has been doubtful,” said Baldev Kumar, a senior pharmacist and a nominated member of the Central Council. Since the election in 2022, we had been constantly seeking reply from the registrar in the matter, but in vain.

In the first place, as per section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1848, Patel is not even a member of the Central Council member which can make him eligible to fight for the post of President, pointed out Professor S Ramachandra Shetty, Head, Department of Pharmacology, Government College of Pharmacy, Bengaluru in his dissent letter written to the Registrar.

“…Further section 31 of the Pharmacy Act 1948 states that “A person who has attained the age of 18 shall be entitled on payment of prescribed fees to have his name entered in the first register if he resides, or carries on business or profession of Pharmacy in the state and if he..... However in the case of Montu Patel, he is not eligible as per the above sections of the Pharmacy Act 1948,” said Prof Shetty.

Another contentious point he raised was that the union territories of Daman and Diu and Dadar Nagar Haveli were merged and became one union territory. Since section 3 (h) of Pharmacy State mentions that only a person shall represent each state. Under this section Sri Ramanga Lingeshware Rao is already representing the Dadar Nagar Haweli and his membership has not expired, although there is no provision for the nomination of one more member from the same union territory. Therefore the nomination of Montu Patel does not have any legal standing, he said.

Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the signing of Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) by the President for the Registrar, a process deemed irregular due to the lack of authorization.

The dissenting members have now sought intervention from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Union Health Ministry in the matter and also investigate fraudulent practices, they alleged, were taking place within the PCI under the present PCI President.

Members have also written to the Daman and Diu administrator regarding Patel’s status as PCI member, seeking clarification on his status. We want a thorough investigation and remedial action to uphold integrity and fairness in PCI’s operations, they said.

Queries sent via mail by this paper to Mittal regarding the allegations remain unanswered.