Supreme Court Clarifies Use of ‘Architect’ Title Under Architects Act: Council of Architecture vs. Mukesh Goyal (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 257

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J. and Ajay Rastogi J.

Can someone who isn’t a registered architect under the Architects Act, 1972, still practice architecture? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the scope of Section 37 of the Architects Act. This judgment is significant for professionals in the field and for regulatory bodies. The core issue revolved around whether the Act restricts the use of the title “Architect” or also prohibits the practice of architecture by unregistered individuals. The bench comprised of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J. and Ajay Rastogi J.

Case Background

The case originated from writ petitions filed by Mr. Mukesh Goyal, an Architectural cum Planning Assistant at the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). Mr. Goyal, possessing a degree in architecture, challenged NOIDA’s promotion policy. He argued that the policy allowed individuals without a degree in architecture to be promoted to positions such as Associate Architect, which he contended violated the Architects Act, 1972. NOIDA, established under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, framed service regulations in 1981, which were later modified by the Recruitment and Promotion Policy 2005.

The 2005 policy stipulated that 60% of promotions to Associate Town Planner and Associate Architect posts would be based on experience, while the remaining 40% were reserved for direct recruitment. The policy also specified that a degree in Architecture and Town Planning was required for direct recruitment to the post of Associate Town Planner and a degree in Architecture was required for direct recruitment to the post of Associate Architect . A meeting was held on 20 March 2006 to decide whether a degree in Architecture and Town Planning and a degree in Architecture was necessary for candidates who were to be promoted to the posts of Associate Town Planner and Associate Architect . The Mukhya Nagar Gram Niyojak, Uttar Pradesh, recommended that a degree or diploma in the relevant subjects should be an essential qualification for candidates seeking promotion. Promotions were put on hold, leading to the writ petitions.

Mr. Goyal sought a writ of mandamus to enforce the Architects Act, ensuring only registered architects were appointed to these positions and that promotions be based on seniority and qualifications. He also challenged the Promotion Policy 2005 for allowing promotions without requiring a degree in architecture recognized under the Architects Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Allahabad, relying on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Mukesh Kumar Manhar v Sri Ram Singh Ahirwar, held that Section 37 of the Architects Act only prohibits the use of the title “Architect” by unregistered individuals but does not bar them from practicing architecture. The High Court also stated that the Promotion Policy 2005, which allowed individuals without a degree in architecture to be appointed as Associate Architects, did not violate Section 37 of the Architects Act. The High Court further noted that the requirements of the Architects Act could not be read into the Promotion Policy 2005, which is a regulation under a state legislation.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972, which states:

“37. Prohibition against use of title. —(1) After the expiry of one year from the date appointed under sub-section (2) of section 24, no person other than a registered architect, or a firm of architects shall use the title and style of architect: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to— (a) practice of the profession of an architect by a person designated as a ―landscape architect‖ or ―naval architect‖; (b) a person who, carrying on the profession of an architect in any country outside India, undertakes the function as a consultant or designer in India for a specific project with the prior permission of the Central Government. Explanation. —For the purposes of clause (a), — (i) ―landscape architect‖ means a person who deals with the design of open spaces relating to plants, trees and landscape; (ii) ―naval architect‖ means an architect who deals with design and construction of ships.”

Other relevant sections include:

• Section 2(a) of the Architects Act, 1972: Defines “architect” as a person whose name is entered in the register maintained under Section 23 of the Act.
• Section 14 of the Architects Act, 1972: Specifies that only qualifications included in the Schedule or notified under Section 15 are recognized for registration.
• Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972: Provides for the preparation and maintenance of a register of architects in India.
• Section 35 of the Architects Act, 1972: States that any reference to an architect in any law shall be deemed to be a reference to a registered architect under this Act.

The Architects Act is a special legislation which creates a regulatory regime for the profession of architecture. It establishes the Council of Architecture and sets out the qualifications, registration, and disciplinary aspects of the profession.

Arguments

Council of Architecture’s Arguments:

• The Architects Act aims to ensure only qualified architects provide architectural services.
• The Act is a comprehensive legislation regulating all aspects of architecture in India.
• Section 37 should be interpreted to prohibit unqualified individuals from practicing architecture, not just using the title.
• The High Court’s narrow interpretation of Section 37 risks allowing unqualified individuals to supervise building construction.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mukesh Kumar Manhar directed the state government to cease using the nomenclature of “Assistant Architect” or “Architect” for posts not requiring a degree in architecture.

Union of India’s Arguments (represented by the Attorney General):

• The Architects Act aims to protect the title of architects but does not grant them an exclusive right over the activities of designing, supervising, and constructing buildings.
• Section 37, titled “Prohibition against the use of title,” only restricts the use of the title “architect” and not the practice of architecture.
• The Act does not prohibit the practice of architecture by individuals not registered with the Council.
• The definition of “architect” in the Act refers to a person registered with the Council, not to individuals engaged in the design, supervision, or construction of buildings.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The Council of Architecture’s argument that Section 37 should be interpreted to prohibit the practice of architecture, not just the use of the title, is innovative because it seeks to expand the scope of the provision beyond its literal wording. This argument is based on the broader objective of the Act to ensure that only qualified professionals provide architectural services. On the other hand, the Union of India’s argument, while not innovative, is based on a literal interpretation of the statute and the legislative intent as expressed in the Statement of Objects and Reasons.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

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?
2. 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Ram Kumar Bhardwaj [(1980) 18 DLT 283] (High Court of Delhi): The High Court held that the Architects Act does not restrict the practice of architecture to registered persons, unlike the Advocates Act.
• Om Prakash Mittal v Council of Architecture [AIR 1983 Del 223] (High Court of Delhi): The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 37, stating that it aims to prevent unqualified persons from calling themselves architects.
• Tulya Gogoi v Association of Architects [(1999) 3 Gau LR 179] (High Court of Gauhati): The High Court held that the prohibition on the use of the title “architect” applies to both private individuals and government employees.
• Mukesh Kumar Manhar v Sri Ram Singh Ahirwar [2006 (1) MPLJ 238] (High Court of Madhya Pradesh): The High Court held that Section 37 only prohibits the use of the title “architect” and not the practice of architecture.
• Premendra Raj Mehta v National Building Construction Corporation Limited [W.P. (C) 2106 / 2012] (High Court of Delhi): The High Court reiterated that Section 37 only prohibits the use of the title “architect” and not the practice of architecture.
• Sudhir Vohra v Registrar of Companies [W.P. (C) 934/2012 and C.M. No. 18315/2014] (High Court of Delhi): The High Court held that the Architects Act does not restrict the provision of architectural services to registered architects.
• Council of Architecture v Manohar Krishnaji Ranade [C.A. Nos 3346-3348 of 2005] (Supreme Court of India): The Supreme Court held that the practice under the Architects Act is not restricted only to architects.
• Council of Architecture v Indian Institute of Architects [C.A. No 12649 of 2017] (Supreme Court of India): The Supreme Court followed the order in Manohar Krishnaji Ranade.
• Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641] (Supreme Court of India): The Supreme Court articulated the principle that delegated legislation must yield to plenary legislation.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(a) of the Architects Act, 1972: Defines “architect” as a person whose name is entered in the register maintained under Section 23 of the Act.
• Section 14 of the Architects Act, 1972: Specifies that only qualifications included in the Schedule or notified under Section 15 are recognized for registration.
• Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972: Provides for the preparation and maintenance of a register of architects in India.
• Section 35 of the Architects Act, 1972: States that any reference to an architect in any law shall be deemed to be a reference to a registered architect under this Act.
• Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972: Prohibits the use of the title “architect” by unregistered individuals, but not the practice of architecture.
• Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: Restricts the practice of medicine to registered medical practitioners.
• Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961: Restricts the practice of law to registered advocates.

[TABLE] of Authorities and Court’s View:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the decisions of the High Courts of Delhi, Gauhati, and Madhya Pradesh in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Ram Kumar Bhardwaj, Om Prakash Mittal v Council of Architecture, Tulya Gogoi v Association of Architects, Mukesh Kumar Manhar v Sri Ram Singh Ahirwar, Premendra Raj Mehta v National Building Construction Corporation Limited, and Sudhir Vohra v Registrar of Companies, which held that Section 37 only prohibits the use of the title “architect” and not the practice of architecture.
• The Supreme Court explained the orders in Council of Architecture v Manohar Krishnaji Ranade [CITATION] and Council of Architecture v Indian Institute of Architects [CITATION], clarifying that they meant the practice of architecture is not restricted to registered architects.
• The Supreme Court followed the principle laid down in Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India [CITATION], that delegated legislation must yield to plenary legislation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the plain language of Section 37 of the Architects Act and the legislative intent behind the Act. The Court emphasized that the Act was primarily designed to protect the title “Architect” and ensure that individuals using the title possessed the necessary qualifications. However, it did not intend to prevent others, such as engineers and designers, from engaging in construction-related activities, provided they did not use the title “Architect”. The Court also considered the practical implications of restricting the practice of architecture to registered architects, noting that it could lead to confusion and hinder various professionals involved in construction.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they were not supported by the plain language of the statute or the legislative intent. The Court emphasized that it cannot interpret a statute in a way that is contrary to its plain meaning, even if it believes that such an interpretation would better serve the public interest.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The plain language of Section 37 only prohibits the use of the title “Architect” and not the practice of architecture.
• The legislative intent, as expressed in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, was to protect the title “Architect” and not to grant exclusive rights over architectural activities.
• The Architects Act is different from the Indian Medical Council Act and the Advocates Act, which explicitly restrict the practice of medicine and law, respectively.
• Restricting the practice of architecture to registered architects would lead to confusion and hinder various professionals involved in construction.

“…the Architects Act does not prohibit persons other than those who are registered as Architects from practising the profession. As noticed above, Section 37 only prohibits any person other than a registered architect using the title and style of Architect. It does not prohibit a person, who is not a registered as an Architect with the Council of Architecture from carrying on or discharging any function that can be carried on by a registered Architect…”

“…the legislation protects the title “architects” but does not make the design, supervision and construction of buildings as an exclusive responsibility of architects. Other professions like engineers will be free to engage themselves in their normal vocation in respect of building construction work provided that they do not style themselves as architects.”

“…to permit NOIDA to continue to title a post that includes individuals who are not registered architects under the Architects Act as “Associate Architect” would result in a violation of Section 37 of the Architects Act.”

Key Takeaways

• Unregistered individuals can practice architecture, but they cannot use the title “Architect.”
• Government bodies cannot appoint individuals to posts titled “Architect” or “Associate Architect” unless they are registered under the Architects Act.
• The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 37 of the Architects Act, providing guidance for regulatory bodies and professionals in the field.
• The ruling ensures that individuals holding the title “Architect” possess the necessary qualifications, protecting the public from unqualified professionals.
• The judgment may lead to changes in the nomenclature of government posts to comply with the provisions of the Architects Act.

This judgment may lead to a re-evaluation of recruitment and promotion policies in government bodies and other organizations that employ architects. It also provides clarity on the legal framework governing the profession of architecture in India.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that NOIDA cannot promote or recruit individuals who do not hold a degree in architecture recognized by the Architects Act to a post that uses the title or style of “architect”. However, the authority is free to re-designate the post by using a different nomenclature which does not include the term “architect”. The Supreme Court also directed NOIDA to review the promotion policy in light of the interpretation of Section 37 of the Architects Act.