The National Pharmacy Commission Bill, 2026 seeks to replace the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Critically examine the governance failures of the existing Pharmacy Council of India and assess whether the proposed commission model can address them.

The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), constituted in 1949 under Section 3 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, remains India's apex pharmacy regulator [2]. The revised National Pharmacy Commission (NPC) Bill, 2026, released for public consultation on 1 July 2026, proposes to repeal this 78-year-old law [1] — an admission that the council model has outlived its regulatory capacity.

Governance failures of the PCI

• Conflation of functions: A single council simultaneously frames education standards, inspects colleges, and enforces ethics — with no internal separation, weakening arm's-length scrutiny.
• Regulatory capture: Dominance of institutional interests over public-health objectives, mirroring the critique that preceded the Medical Council of India's replacement by the NMC in 2020.
• Integrity deficit: Investigative proceedings against PCI leadership in recent years eroded institutional credibility and sharpened the case for structural reform.
• Fragmented registration: Registration rests with State Pharmacy Councils under the 1948 Act [2], with no unified national register — enabling duplicate and ghost entries.
• Outdated mandate: The Act predates modern clinical pharmacy, e-pharmacy and pharmacovigilance.

Whether the commission model answers them

• Structural separation: Three autonomous boards — Education, Assessment and Rating, and Ethics and Registration — unbundle rule-making from inspection, directly targeting capture.
• National Pharmacy Register: A centralised database under the Ethics Board addresses ghost registration and enables workforce planning.
• Outcome-based entry: A proposed common exit test shifts quality assurance from institutional inspection to demonstrated competence.
• Democratic legitimacy: Two rounds of pre-legislative consultation, with the draft issued in multiple regional languages [1], improve process quality.
• Residual risks: A largely nominated commission answerable to the ministry may substitute executive control for professional capture; Centre–State friction persists since standards fall under Entry 66 of the Union List while practice touches State subjects; MCI-to-NMC transition delays warn against a disorderly handover.

Structure alone does not guarantee accountability. If the NPC is staffed transparently, funded independently and made to publish assessment ratings, it can convert pharmacy regulation from gatekeeping into quality assurance — advancing the right to health under Article 21 and SDG-3's call for a competent health workforce.