1. Dispute over whether Section 37, Architects Act 1972 prohibits unregistered individuals from practicing architecture or merely restricts the use of the title Architect. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 261
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Council of Architecture – Appellant
Versus
Mr Mukesh Goyal & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No 1819 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 18752 of 2014) with Civil Appeal Nos.1820-1822 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos 25524-25526 of 2014)
Decided on : 17-03-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :V. N. Raghupathy, Ramnish Khanna, Manendra Pal Gupta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):R. Balasubramanian, Chinmayee Chandra, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Aniruddha P. Mayee, V. N. Raghupathy, Anuvrat Sharma, Ravindra Kumar, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :V. N. Raghupathy, Ramnish Khanna, Manendra Pal Gupta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):R. Balasubramanian, Chinmayee Chandra, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Aniruddha P. Mayee, V. N. Raghupathy, Anuvrat Sharma, Ravindra Kumar, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
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.
NOIDA cannot promote or recruit individuals who do not hold a degree in architecture recognised by the Architects Act to a post that uses the title or style of “architect”.
Headnote:
(a) Architects Act 1972 - Sections 14, 15 and 17 - By creating a system of statutorily recognised educational qualifications, the Act regulates those individuals who are eligible to be registered architects. (Para 22)
(b) Architects Act 1972 - Section 37 - Prohibition of use of title and style of architect by persons not registered under the Act - Title and style are distinct from practice - Act not prohibiting unregistered individuals from practicing activities undertaken by architects. (Para 26)
(c) Architects Act 1972 - Section 37 - Legislative intent - Not to create a prohibition on the practice of architecture and associated activities by unregistered individuals as opposed to physicians or surgeons under Indian Medical Council Act or advocates under Advocates Act. (Para 30, 33)
(d) Architects Act 1972 - Section 37 - Name of a post as ‘Architect’ or ‘Associate Architect’ - Not merely nomenclature - To promote an individual not possessing a degree in architecture recognised by the Act to a post titled “Architect”, “Associate Architect” or of a similar style using the title or style of “architect” - Violates the prohibition on the use of title contained in Section 37 - Section 37 makes no distinction between government employees and private individuals - (Para 36, 37)
(e) Interpretation of statute - Delegated regulation - Susceptible to invalidity on the grounds of being ultra vires its parent legislation but also ultra vires other primary legislation - Presently NOIDA’s Promotion Policy of 2005 setting out sources and qualifications for recruitment in its architecture department contradictory to a primary legislation, i.e., Architects Act - Provisions of the Architects Act must prevail. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this case is whether Section 37 of the Architects Act 1972 merely prohibits the use of the title “Architect” by individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture under Chapter 3 of the enactment or alternatively whether Section 37 actually prohibits unregistered individuals from carrying out the practice of architecture and its cognate activities. In other words, does Section 37 permit individuals not registered with the Council to continue practicing the profession of architecture in India? As a corollary to this question, the question arises whether a government post titled or styled using the term “Architect” can be held by individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture.
Finding of the Court:
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.
NOIDA cannot promote or recruit individuals who do not hold a degree in architecture recognised by the Architects Act to a post that uses the title or style of “architect”.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 37 prohibits the practice of architecture by unregistered persons or only restricts the use of the title Architect, including in government designations. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. The court analyzed legislative intent and compared the Act with medical and legal statutes, finding the prohibition limited to the title to accommodate other construction professionals. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibits unregistered individuals from using the title and style of Architect but does not prohibit the practice of architecture. (Para 26 , 33 )
5. Unregistered individuals may practice architecture, but cannot hold posts using the title or style of Architect. (Para 39 , 40 )
6. Does Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibit unregistered persons from practicing architecture?
No. A plain reading of Section 37, the Statement of Objects and Reasons, and comparisons with the Advocates Act and Indian Medical Council Act show the prohibition is limited to the use of the title and style of Architect, not the actual practice of architectural activities. (Para 26 , 29 , 30 , 33 )
7. Can a government employee hold a post titled Architect if they are not registered under the Architects Act?
No. Holding a post titled Architect or Associate Architect constitutes using the title and style of Architect, which is prohibited under Section 37. This is not mere nomenclature but a representation of professional qualification that misleads the public. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 )
8. How does the Architects Act differ from the Advocates Act and Indian Medical Council Act regarding professional practice?
The Advocates Act and Indian Medical Council Act expressly prohibit unregistered persons from practicing law or medicine. In contrast, the Architects Act only prohibits the use of the title Architect, allowing other qualified professionals, such as engineers, to perform architectural functions. (Para 16 , 17 , 26 )
9. Does a state-level promotion policy need to comply with the Architects Act?
Yes. Subordinate or delegated legislation, such as a state-level promotion policy, must yield to primary legislation. Where the provisions of a primary legislation like the Architects Act are contradictory to delegated legislation, the primary legislation must prevail. (Para 38 , 39 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
The question before this Court is whether Section 37 of the Architects Act 1972[“Architects Act”] merely prohibits the use of the title “Architect” by individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture[“Council”] under Chapter 3 of the enactment or alternatively whether Section 37 actually prohibits unregistered individuals from carrying out the practice of architecture and its cognate activities. In other words, does Section 37 permit individuals not registered with the Council to continue practicing the profession of architecture in India? As a corollary to this question, this Court is also called upon to determine whether a government post titled or styled using the term “Architect” can be held by individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture.
2. The present appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the first respondent before the High Court of Allahabad. The first respondent has been working as an Architectural cum Planning Assistant in the service of the third respondent, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority[“NOIDA”] since January 1988 and claims to possess a degree in architecture from the Indian Institute of Architects. NOIDA is an authority created under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976 [“U.P. Industrial Area Development Act”] to supervise and manage the development of various geographical zones of the state of Uttar Pradesh.
3. Exercising its powers under Section 19 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act and with the approval of the state government, NOIDA framed the Service Regulations of 1981 for the recruitment and promotion of employees in its various departments. One of the departments under NOIDA‘s purview is the Department of Planning and Architecture where the first respondent is employed. Regulation 16 of the Service Regulations 1981 sets out the ‘Sources of Recruitment‘. Under sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of Regulation 16, NOIDA has been conferred with the power to modify the sources of recruitment or the percentage of candidates appointed through promotion and direct recruitment. Thus, under the Service Regulations 1981, NOIDA has the power to lay down the conditions and qualifications for promotion from the feeder cadre to various posts in the Department of Planning and Architecture.
4. NOIDA spelt out the qualifications and conditions required for the promotion to various posts in the Recruitment and Promotion Policy 2005[“Promotion Policy 2005”]. The Department of Planning and Architecture consists of two cadre streams, the Planning cadre stream and the Architecture cadre stream. The Planning cadre stream consists of the following posts (in ascending order of seniority): (i) Planning Assistant; (ii) Associate Town Planner; (iii) Town Planner; and (iv) Senior Town Planner. The Architecture cadre stream consists of the following posts (in ascending order of seniority): (i) Architecture Assistant; (ii) Associate Architect; (iii) Architect; and (iv) Senior Architect. In practice, the two cadres draw on a common pool of candidates, the only distinction being made when specific work orders are issued.
5. The Promotion Policy 2005 provided that for the post of Associate Town Planner, 60 per cent of recruitment would take place by way of promotion, the eligibility criteria being fifteen years‘ experience as a Planning Assistant. Similarly, for the post of Associate Architect, 60 per cent of the posts were to be filled through promotion, the eligibility criteria being fifteen years‘ experience as an Architecture Assistant. The remaining 40 per cent of posts were to be filled through direct recruitment, with a degree in Architecture and Town Planning and a degree in Architecture stipulated as essential qualifications for appointment as an Associate Town Planner and Associate Architect respectively.
6. A meeting was held by NOIDA on 20 March 2006 to decide whether a degree in Architecture and Town
