| Headnote |
Education/Educational Institutions – Architectural course – Institutions running said course – Norms and standards for – Issue as to the final authority in case of any contradiction in the opinion of Council of Architecture (CoA) [constituted under the 1972 Act] and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) [constituted under the 1987 Act], in the matters of grant of approval to institutions for conducting the said course and monitoring their working – Seven matters involving similar controversy – In main appeal C.A. No.364 of 2005, the dispute pertains to intake capacity of the respondent-institution – CoA on carrying out inspection of the institution in 2004 restored the intake capacity of 40 students per year which was earlier reduced to 30 – However, the Director of Technical Education fixed the same at 30 students on the basis of norms fixed by AICTE – Challenged – High Court inter alia upheld the power of CoA as the final authority for fixing the norms and standards of institutions running course on architecture – On appeal, held: So far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of architecture education is concerned, the 1972 Act shall prevail – AICTE not entitled to impose any regulatory measure in connection with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of architecture – Judgment of the Bombay High Court sustained in the main appeal – In civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.5400 of 2011, the process of recognition contained in the 1972 Act be implemented in respect of the subject institution before any further admission takes place – But, admissions already undertaken in terms of interim orders of Supreme Court, not to be disturbed – It is so directed, as the High Court itself directed compliance of CoA norms and building requirements set by it was to be effected within one year – AICTE not to have any regulatory control over the concerned institution so far as architecture education is concerned – Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.8443 of 2011 is dismissed – Further, in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.20460 of 2011, decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court issuing directions contained in the judgment under appeal in absence of CoA being impleaded is erroneous – However, no independent directions issued as these appeals were heard together as batch matters and the grievances of CoA have been addressed in the judgment – Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17005 and 17006 of 2016 are disposed of in terms of the decision in the main appeal – In appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.28121 of 2018, the decision of the Kerala High Court is set aside – Institution involved is entitled to operate with recognition obtained under the 1972 Act – Interim orders passed in these appeals, dissolved – Architects Act, 1972 – ss.2(d), 3, 14-21, 25, 35, 43-45 – All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – ss. 2(g), 3, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25– All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulations, 1994 – All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and guidelines for admission in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 – Council of Architecture Regulations, 1982 – Part VIII- Clauses 29, 30 – Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations 1983 – Clauses 5, 8; Appendix B, C – Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulation, 2015 – Constitution of India – Art.77 – Interpretation of Statutes.Interpretation of Statutes – Former and later Acts – Clashing provisions – Overlapping provisions in the 1972 Act (under which the Council of Architecture (CoA) is constituted) and the 1987 Act (under which the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is constituted) on the question of grant of approval and subsequent monitoring of architectural education – Plea on behalf of AICTE that the 1987 Act being later statute, covering common field, the provisions of the 1972 Act, to the extent the same deals with architectural education, shall be deemed to have been repealed by implication – Held: It is not an absolute proposition of law that a later Act would always prevail over the former in the event there are clashing provisions even if there is no express provision of repeal – Architects Act, 1972 – All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987.Interpretation of Statutes – Special law vis-a-vis general law – Council of Architecture (CoA) constituted under the 1972 Act and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) constituted under the 1987 Act – Overlapping powers on the aspect of setting norms for architectural education and for monitoring the institutions engaged in imparting such education – Held: A special law implies a statute covering a particular subject specifically – Subject of conflict in the present proceedings is architectural education – 1972 Act however does not solely deal with architectural education – Further, the 1987 Act has certain features of a special law being devoted to setting up, supervision and monitoring of institutions imparting technical education, but it does not cover technical education imparted by all types of institutions – Having regard to the scheme and provisions of these two statutes, ex-facie it is difficult to label either of them as special law or general law – Architects Act, 1972 – All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987.Interpretation of Statutes – Principle of implied repeal – Application of – Overlapping of powers between the Council of Architecture (CoA) constituted under the 1972 Act and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) constituted under the 1987 Act, on the aspect of setting norms for architectural education and monitoring the institutions engaged in imparting such education – Dominant purpose of the two legislations – Held: Principle of implied repeal cannot apply so far as the provisions relating to architecture education is concerned, on the basis of the 1987 Act having become operational – One of the dominant purposes of the 1972 Act is recognition of qualifications on architecture – Registration of an architect is dependent upon acquisition of such recognised qualification – Said Act cannot be held to have been repealed by implication for the sole reason of inclusion of the word “architecture” in the definition of technical education– AICTE failed to discharge onus to establish that the provisions of the 1972 Act was repealed by implication – Architects Act, 1972 – All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – s.2(g).Architects Act, 1972 – s.17 – Non-obstante clause – Implication of – Discussed. All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – s.2(g) – Subject of conflict in the instant cases is architectural education as under the 1972 Act and the 1987 Act there are overlapping areas under which the respective Councils i.e. Council of Architecture (CoA) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) could make Regulations – Plea that the context of regulating architecture education requires exclusion of the expression “architecture” from the definition of technical education – Held: So far as these appeals are concerned, to altogether exclude architecture from the purview of AICTE, that expression, i.e. architecture would have to be dropped from the definition of technical education – If the issue is examined in the external context, which in this case would be the provisions of 1972 Act, such a course would be inevitable – A meaning different to what is ascribed in the definition clause can be given to a word in different parts of a statute if the context so demands – Subjectdispute involved in these appeals requires omission of the word architecture from the definition of technical education – Such course is also a permissible tool of construction to prevent absurd or unworkable results flowing from a statute – In respect of the provisions of s.2 (g), the definition of “technical education” would have to be given such a construction and the word “architecture” should be treated to have been inapplicable in cases where the AICTE imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking technical education – There would however be no substitution because the context would not demand it – Architects Act, 1972 – Interpretation of Statutes. |
