NDLI: Council of Architecture Vs. Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Architects Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Architects Act, 1972 (20 of 1972)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Architects Act, 1972 – s. 37 – Prohibition against use of title – The High Court held that s.37 of the Architects Act does not create a bar on individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture from carrying out the duties and functions of an Architect – On appeal, held: A plain reading of s.37 clearly supports the proposition that the Architects Act prohibits individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture from using the title and style of ‘Architect’ and does not prohibit unregistered individuals from practicing the activities undertaken by Architects such as the design, supervision and construction of buildings – The legislature stated in the ‘Statement of objects and reasons’ 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 – Thus, it is evident that legislature did not intend to create a prohibition on the practice of architecture and associated activities by unregistered individuals – However, by virtue of the Architects Act, anybody engaging the services of an individual calling themselves an ‘Architect’ is assured that such an individual possesses statutorily recognised educational qualifications and is competent to complete the task at hand – It is in this manner that the legislature protects the common person from untrained individuals – Thus, the decision of the High Court holding that s.37 of the Architects Act does not prohibit individuals not registered under the Architects Act from undertaking the practice of architecture is affirmed. Architects Act, 1972 – Whether a Government Post titled or styled using the term ‘Architect’ can be held by individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture – The High Court held that the ‘mere nomenclature’ of a particular post will not violate the prohibition on the use of ‘title and style’ of architect u/s. 37 – On appeal, held: s.37 prohibits unregistered individuals from designating themselves or referring to themselves as ‘Architects’ – If a Government Post is titled ‘Architect’ or ‘Associate Architect’, such a person certainly uses the title and style of ‘Architect’ and consequently there is a reasonable assumption that such a person is registered under the Architects Act and holds a degree in architecture recognised by the Act – To promote an individual who does not possess 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’ would effectively violate the prohibition on the use of title contained in s. 37 of the Architects Act – The text of s.37 makes no distinction between government employees and private individuals – Thus, authorities 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’ – The view of the High Court is disapproved. Interpretation of Statutes – The first and best method of determining the intention of the legislature is the very words chosen by the legislature to have the force of law – In other words, the intention of the legislature is best evidenced by the text of the statute itself – However, where a plain reading of the text of the statute leads to an absurd or unreasonable meaning, the text of the statute must be construed in light of the object and purpose with which the legislature enacted the statute as a whole. Delegated Legislation – Primary Legislation – It is well established that delegated legislation is susceptible to invalidity on the grounds of being ultra vires its parent legislation but also ultra vires other primary legislation – Where the provisions of a primary legislation (The Architect Act, 1972) are contradictory to the provisions of a delegated legislation (The Promotion Policy 2005), the provisions of the primary legislation must prevail.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 298
Petitioner	Council Of Architecture
Respondent	Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 7 S.C.R. 904
Judgement Date	2020-03-17
Case Number	1819

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Council of Architecture Vs. Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Council of Architecture Vs. The Academic Society of Architects (tasa) & Ors.

Dr. R.k. Goyal Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Council for Technical Education Vs. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture & Ors.

L.c. Goyal Vs. Mrs. Suresh Joshi and Ors.

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Col. Harbans Waraich and Ors.

Purshottam Das Goyal Vs. Honble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal

Mukesh Kumar & Anr Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Council of Architecture Vs. Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.

Council of Architecture Vs. Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Council of Architecture Vs. The Academic Society of Architects (tasa) & Ors.

Dr. R.k. Goyal Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Council for Technical Education Vs. Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House’s College of Architecture & Ors.

L.c. Goyal Vs. Mrs. Suresh Joshi and Ors.

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Col. Harbans Waraich and Ors.

Purshottam Das Goyal Vs. Honble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal

Mukesh Kumar & Anr Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Council of Architecture Vs. Mr. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.