Regulator cannot block a second physiotherapy college on the same campus without rules, Delhi High Court says

Parul University, a private university operating two physiotherapy colleges on its campus, applied to the Gujarat State Allied and Healthcare Council on 22 August 2026 to establish a third college on the same campus for a Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) course with 100 seats for the 2026–27 academic year.

The application was rejected by communication dated 15 September 2026, on the ground that another college should not be established for the same course on the same campus. The University challenged that decision, contending that no regulation prohibited the proposed college and relying on the National Commission’s interim office order of 8 April 2026.

Whether the respondents could reject the University’s application to establish another college for the same course on the same campus when no applicable regulation prohibited it

Whether the Commission’s office order dated 8 April 2026 and the Supreme Court proceedings concerning interim arrangements required the respondents to consider the application under the conditions specified in that order

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution protects the right to practise a profession and to carry on an occupation, trade or business, subject to lawful restrictions. Section 11(1)(a) of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 empowers the Commission to frame policies and standards for allied and healthcare education; however, the Court noted that no relevant policy or regulation had been framed to prohibit two colleges offering the same course on one campus.

Under Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, administrative instructions may fill gaps where statutory rules are silent, but cannot amend or supersede statutory rules.

The Commission’s office order of 8 April 2026 permitted new courses in existing or new allied and healthcare institutions, subject to specified conditions, pending notification of final regulations.

The Court found that the rejection rested on an administrative position rather than any existing regulation prohibiting another college for the same course on the same campus.

It held Sant Ram Sharma inapplicable as authority for the respondents’ position: although administrative instructions may fill gaps, they could not be used in this case to circumvent the petitioner’s Article 19(1)(g) rights in the absence of regulations governing the matter.

The Court also considered the 8 April 2026 office order, which allowed new courses subject to stated conditions, and found those conditions met by the petitioner. A possible future policy restricting multiple colleges on one campus was speculative and could not justify the present rejection.

It directed the respondents to take consequential action expeditiously and within one week of the order’s uploading, noting that counselling was ongoing.