Unregistered Individuals Not Prohibited From Practice Of Architecture, But They Can't Designate Themselves As Architects: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme court has held that Section 37 of the Architects Act does not prohibit individuals not registered under the Architects Act from undertaking the practice of architecture and its cognate activities. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi observed that a post titled 'Architect', 'Associate architect' or any other similar title using the term or style of 'Architect' cannot be held by a person not registered as an architect under the Architects Act. In an appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment by the Architecture Council of India, the Apex Court considered these two questions. (1) Does Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibit individuals not registered as architects under the Architects Act from practicing the activities undertaken by architects, including the design, supervision and construction of buildings; and (ii) Whether a post titled 'Architect', 'Associate architect' or any other similar title using the term or style of 'Architect' can be held by a person not registered as an architect under the Architects Act.?The High Court had held that Section 37 only prohibits unregistered individuals from using the title "architect". It was further held that the Promotion Policy 2005, which allowed for individuals not holding a degree in architecture being appointed to the Class II post of Associate Architect, did not contravene Section 37 of the Architects Act in so far as they would be carrying out the activities of an architect.No Prohibition on Practice To answer the first question, the bench took note of the phrase "no person shall … use the title and style of architect" in Section 37 and observed that the legal prohibition created is on the use of the "title and style of architect." The bench, taking note of the scheme of the Act, observed: It is evident that the legislature did not intend to create a prohibition on the practice of architecture and associated activities by unregistered individuals. As opposed to the case of physicians or surgeons under the Indian Medical Council Act or advocates under the Advocates Act, the legislature consciously chose to employ a less stringent measure in the case of architects, merely prohibiting unregistered individuals from using the "title and style" of architect. It is not for this Court to delve into why the legislature made this choice. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Architects Act makes it evident that the legislature was undoubtedly concerned with the risk of unqualified persons undertaking the construction of buildings leading to costly and dangerous buildings. In guarding against this risk, the legislature first set out a minimum standard of statutorily recognised qualifications to be met before an individual is designated as an architect under the Architects Act. This is done by Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Act. Next, the legislature created two classes of individuals: the first class consisted of registered architects satisfying these minimum qualifications and a second class of unregistered individuals who did not satisfy these minimum qualifications. This is the effect of Sections 2(a), 17, 23 and 35 of the Architects Act. Crucially, the legislature chose to define an "architect" as an individual registered under the Architects Act and not as an individual practicing architecture or any cognate activities. Thus, the legislature limited the regulatory regime created by the Architects Act to the first class of individuals. In protecting the public from the risk of the second class, untrained individuals, the legislature had two options: first it could bar this second class of individuals from engaging in the profession altogether (as it had done with physicians and advocates); or alternatively it could prevent this second class of individuals from calling themselves "Architects". The Statement of Objects and Reasons makes it clear that the legislature chose the second option and in fact went to great lengths to clarify that choice. The legislature stated that with the passing of the legislation, it shall be unlawful for an unregistered individual to "designate himself" as an architect. Further, it is expressly stated that the legislation protects the "title" of architect but does not grant registered architects an exclusive right to undertake the design, supervision and construction of buildings. Other cognate professions or unregistered individuals may continue to carry out these activities provided that they do not refer to themselves as "'architects". The Court also said that it would be unreasonable from a regulatory perspective to ask all professions touching upon the construction of new structures to obtain a degree in architecture. Taking note of the activities undertaken by Architects, the bench said: These activities are undertaken by architects but are also carried out by architects in concert with a range of other actors including draughtspersons, builders, engineers, ...

Unregistered Individuals Not Prohibited From Practice Of Architecture, But They Can't Designate Themselves As Architects: SC [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

"While we have held that Section 37 does not prohibit the practice of architecture by unregistered individuals, it certainly does prohibit unregistered individuals from using the "title and style" of architect."

Tags