Supreme Court Rules on Architects Act: Who Can Practice as an Architect?

The case of Council of Architecture v. Mukesh Goyal & Ors. involved a crucial question regarding the interpretation of the Architects Act, 1972, specifically whether Section 37 of the Act prohibits unregistered individuals from practicing as architects in India. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Act merely prevents unregistered persons from using the title ‘Architect’ or if it also forbids them from engaging in architectural work.

The judgment also addressed whether individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture could hold government positions styled as ‘Architect’ or similar designations. The ruling clarified the limits of regulatory control over the profession and its implications for the architectural industry.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the respondent, Mr. Mukesh Goyal, challenged the decision of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) regarding the qualifications required for promotion within its Planning and Architecture Department. NOIDA’s Promotion Policy of 2005 allowed individuals without an architecture degree to be promoted to the post of Associate Architect, which was challenged before the High Court.

The Council of Architecture, the statutory body responsible for regulating the profession, contested the High Court’s decision, arguing that the promotion policy violated the Architects Act by allowing unregistered individuals to hold a title and function reserved for registered architects.

Key Legal Issues

• Does Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibit unregistered individuals from practicing architecture?
• Can a person who is not registered under the Act hold the title of ‘Architect’ or a similar designation?
• Does the Act impose restrictions on the practice of architecture similar to those imposed on other professions like law and medicine?
• Does NOIDA’s Promotion Policy contravene the provisions of the Architects Act?

Arguments by the Petitioners (Council of Architecture)

The Council of Architecture argued that:

• The purpose of the Architects Act is to ensure that only qualified individuals practice architecture in India.
• Section 37 should be interpreted broadly to prohibit unregistered individuals from engaging in any architectural work.
• Allowing non-registered individuals to perform architectural duties would undermine the profession and pose risks to public safety.
• The High Court’s ruling that only the use of the title ‘Architect’ is restricted, but the practice is open to anyone, is incorrect.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents contended that:

• The Architects Act does not prohibit individuals from practicing architecture; it only restricts the use of the title ‘Architect.’
• The right to work in architectural roles should not be limited to those registered with the Council of Architecture.
• NOIDA’s policy does not violate any statutory provision, as it merely defines internal promotional criteria.
• Several High Court judgments have consistently ruled that Section 37 does not bar non-registered individuals from performing architectural tasks.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the wording of the Architects Act and noted:

• The Act is designed to regulate the profession but does not impose an exclusive monopoly on architectural work for registered individuals.
• Unlike the Advocates Act (which prohibits non-lawyers from practicing law) and the Medical Council Act (which restricts medical practice to registered doctors), the Architects Act only prohibits the use of the title ‘Architect.’
• The Act does not define ‘architectural practice,’ leaving room for other professionals to engage in architectural work.
• Restricting the title ‘Architect’ ensures that only qualified professionals are recognized, but it does not prevent engineers, designers, or other professionals from performing architectural tasks.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Section 37 of the Architects Act only prohibits unregistered individuals from using the title ‘Architect’ but does not bar them from practicing architecture.
• NOIDA’s Promotion Policy does not violate the Act, as it does not require the use of the ‘Architect’ title.
• Government entities must avoid assigning titles containing the term ‘Architect’ to individuals who are not registered with the Council of Architecture.
• The regulatory framework of the Architects Act applies strictly to the title but not to the broader scope of architectural work.

Conclusion

The ruling provides clarity on the scope of the Architects Act and establishes a precedent that:

• The Act protects the title ‘Architect’ but does not monopolize architectural work.
• Other professionals can perform architectural functions as long as they do not misrepresent themselves as architects.
• Government organizations must ensure compliance with the Act when naming positions related to architecture.

This judgment underscores the need for a well-defined regulatory framework that balances professional integrity with the realities of the construction and design industries.

Petitioner Name: Council of Architecture.
Respondent Name: Mukesh Goyal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 17-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Council of Architect vs Mukesh Goyal & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category