A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The present decision in The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors., 2026 INSC 63 concerns the constitutional validity of State rules prescribing additional qualifications for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector / Drug Control Officer under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The central issue was whether a State Government, by invoking proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, could prescribe ‘experience’ as an essential qualification when the field of qualification was already occupied by Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, framed under Section 33 of the Act by the Central Government. The High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Karnataka had held that the field stood occupied by the Central legislation and therefore State rules were ultra vires. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional scheme under Articles 372, 254, and 309, the legislative history of the Act under Section 103 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the doctrine of occupied field. The Court concluded that prescription of qualification for Drug Inspectors falls within the exclusive rule-making competence of the Central Government under the Act. State Governments may appoint Inspectors but cannot alter qualifications prescribed by Central Rules. The judgment reinforces legislative supremacy in concurrent matters when Parliament occupies the field.
Keywords: Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Article 309, Occupied Field Doctrine, Rule 49, Legislative Competence, Repugnancy, Public Employment.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 1725–1731 of 2023 and connected matters.
iii) Judgement Date: 13 January 2026.
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.
v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
vi) Author: Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
vii) Citation: 2026 INSC 63
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Sections 21, 33, 38 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;
Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945;
Article 309, 254, 372 of the Constitution of India;
Section 103 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
ix) Judgments overruled: None expressly overruled.
x) Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Service Law, Public Health Law.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The controversy arose from recruitment notifications issued by Haryana and Karnataka for appointment of Drug Inspectors. The States prescribed ‘experience’ as an essential qualification. This prescription was in addition to academic qualifications under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The High Courts struck down the State Rules. They held that Parliament had occupied the legislative field. The Supreme Court examined legislative history in depth. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted after Provincial Legislatures passed resolutions under Section 103 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This transferred legislative power to the Federal Legislature. After the Constitution came into force, the Act continued under Article 372. The Court noted that no State amendment altered Sections 21 or 33. Therefore the power to prescribe qualifications remained with the Central Government. The dispute thus centered on legislative competence and constitutional limitations.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The Haryana Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in 2015. It prescribed 1½ years’ experience in manufacture or testing of Schedule C drugs. This requirement flowed from State Rules framed under proviso to Article 309. Candidates lacking experience were rejected. They challenged the rule. They contended that Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 prescribed only educational qualification. The proviso to Rule 49 mandated experience only for authorization to inspect Schedule C manufacture. It did not make experience essential for appointment. The High Court constituted a Full Bench. It held the field occupied by Central Rules. Similar controversy arose in Karnataka. The Karnataka Public Service Commission required 18 months’ experience. The High Court quashed the condition. Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether State Governments may prescribe additional qualification for Drug Inspectors when Central Rules exist.
ii) Whether such prescription violates the doctrine of occupied field.
iii) Whether Article 309 permits overriding Central legislation.
F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for State submitted that Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 empowers State Governments to appoint Inspectors. Appointment includes prescribing qualifications. They argued Entry 19 of List III permits concurrent legislation. Therefore States may regulate recruitment. They relied on S. Satyapal Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 391. They contended Article 309 confers legislative power. Experience ensures efficiency in public health administration. They asserted no repugnancy exists. Experience under Rule 49 proviso reflects legislative intent. Hence State Rules merely operationalize central standards.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Respondent submitted that Section 33(2)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 confers exclusive power on Central Government to prescribe qualifications. They emphasized that Rule 49 clearly distinguishes qualification from authorization. They relied on Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 5119. That judgment held experience is relevant only for authorization. Respondents invoked Article 254 of the Constitution. They argued Central Rules prevail in concurrent matters. They contended Article 309 cannot override Parliamentary statute. They also cited A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 495. That case clarified Article 309 rules must conform to constitutional limitations.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Section 33(2)(b), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 empowers Central Government to prescribe qualifications.
ii) Rule 49, Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 prescribes degree qualification.
iii) Proviso to Rule 49 restricts authorization, not appointment.
iv) Article 309, Constitution of India allows rule-making for service conditions.
v) Article 254 resolves repugnancy in concurrent matters.
vi) Article 372 continues pre-Constitution laws.
I) PRECEDENTS ANALYSED BY COURT
i) A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 495 — Article 309 rules subject to Constitution and statutes.
ii) S. Satyapal Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 391 — Recruitment rules must align with parent statute.
iii) Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 5119 — Experience under Rule 49 relates to authorization only.
iv) State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC 106 — Doctrine of occupied field explained.
v) M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 — Tests for repugnancy under Article 254.
J) JUDGEMENT
a) RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Supreme Court held that prescription of qualification is exclusively Central domain.
ii) Section 33 expressly occupies the field.
iii) Rule 49 distinguishes appointment and authorization.
iv) State cannot elevate experience into essential qualification.
v) Article 309 is subject to Parliamentary legislation.
vi) Repugnancy arises when State rule alters central standard.
vii) High Courts correctly invalidated State provisions.
b) OBITER DICTA
i) Uniform standards are vital in drug regulation.
ii) Public health demands centralized control.
iii) States may amend Act legislatively if competent.
c) GUIDELINES
i) Appointment power is co-extensive but qualification power is centralized.
ii) Article 309 cannot be used to override Central statute.
iii) In concurrent matters, Central Rules prevail absent Presidential assent.
iv) Experience requirement may apply only for authorization stage.
K) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment reinforces constitutional discipline. It clarifies legislative boundaries. It strengthens doctrine of occupied field. It protects uniform drug regulation standards. It harmonizes service jurisprudence with constitutional supremacy. It affirms that executive rule-making under Article 309 cannot dilute Parliamentary mandate.
L) REFERENCES
a) Important Cases Referred
i) A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 495
ii) S. Satyapal Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 391
iii) Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 5119
iv) State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC 106
v) M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431
b) Important Statutes Referred
i) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
ii) Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945
iii) Constitution of India
iv) Government of India Act, 1935
