AICTE Not Entitled To Regulate Degrees/Diploma In Architecture Education: SC

AICTE Not Entitled To Regulate Degrees/Diploma In Architecture Education: SC

Norms and Regulations set by Council of Architecture and other specified authorities under the Architects Act would have to be followed by an institution imparting education for degrees and diplomas in architecture.

The Supreme Court has held that so far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of architecture education is concerned, the Architects Act, 1972, shall prevail.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) will not be entitled to impose any regulatory measure in connection with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of architecture.

It has been made clear that the norms and Regulations set by Council of Architecture and other specified authorities under the Architects Act would have to be followed by an institution imparting education for degrees and diplomas in architecture.

The issue raised in All India Council for Technical Education vs. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture was whether the mandate of the Council of Architecture (CoA) or that of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) would prevail on the question of granting approval and related matters to an institution for conducting architectural education course, if there is any contradiction in the opinions of these two bodies.

While upholding the Bombay High Court judgment impugned in the appeals, the bench observed:

We are of the opinion that in respect of the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the 1987 Act, the definition of "technical education" would have to be given such a construction and the word "architecture" should be treated to have been inapplicable in cases where the AICTE imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking technical education. There would however be no substitution because the context would not demand it. This construction of the definition clause is necessary as the external context requires it to prevent an unworkable outcome in implementation of the 1987 Act. The principle of implied repeal cannot apply so far as the provisions relating to architecture education is concerned, on the basis of the 1987 Act having become operational. One of the dominant purposes of the 1972 Act is recognition of qualifications on architecture. The registration of an architect is dependent upon acquisition of such recognised qualification. The said Act cannot be held to have been repealed by implication for the sole reason of inclusion of the word "architecture" in the definition of technical education. AICTE has failed to discharge its onus to establish the said provisions of the 1972 Act was repealed by implication.