COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE versus MR. MUKESH GOYAL & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 17-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE
v.
MR. MUKESH GOYAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1819 of  2020)
MARCH 17, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
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
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 904
904
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
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.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Does Section 37 of the Architects Act prohi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.