9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
- Whether the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) overrides the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 in prescribing and regulating norms and standards of architectural institutions. - Whether the AICTE Act has impliedly repealed the provisions of the Architects Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the AICTE Act overrides the Architects Act in prescribing and regulating norms and standards of architectural institutions. The core issue was whether the AICTE Act, being a later statute, overrides the Architects Act in the context of regulating architectural education. The petitioners argued that the Architects Act, 1972, a special law dealing specifically with architecture, should prevail over the AICTE Act, which is a general law encompassing various technical education disciplines. They invoked the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, which implies that a general law does not repeal a special law unless explicitly stated or wholly inconsistent. The court examined the provisions of both Acts in detail. The Architects Act is a comprehensive code for architectural education, covering aspects such as prescribing standards, registration, and professional conduct of architects. It includes a non-obstante clause in Section 17, giving it overriding effect over other laws concerning recognized qualifications for architects. The AICTE Act, on the other hand, aims at the coordinated development of technical education, including architecture. However, its scope is broader, covering various technical disciplines. The court noted that the AICTE Act's role concerning architectural education is primarily advisory, aimed at coordination and development rather than direct regulation. Issue 2: Whether the AICTE Act has impliedly repealed the provisions of the Architects Act. The court addressed whether the AICTE Act impliedly repealed the Architects Act. It referred to the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant and various judicial precedents to determine the legislative intent. The court emphasized that implied repeal is not favored unless the later statute is so inconsistent with or repugnant to the earlier one that both cannot stand together. The court found that the Architects Act, with its specific focus on architectural education and professional standards, remains a special legislation. In contrast, the AICTE Act, despite including architecture within its ambit, is a general law concerning technical education. The court concluded that the provisions of the Architects Act are not impliedly repealed by the AICTE Act. The role of the AICTE in architectural education is limited to advisory functions, and the final authority for prescribing and regulating norms and standards of architectural institutions remains with the Council of Architecture. Conclusion: The court ruled that the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972, prevail over the AICTE Act, 1987, in matters related to architectural education. The Council of Architecture retains the final authority to prescribe and regulate norms and standards for architectural institutions. The order of the Deputy Director reducing the intake capacity of the petitioner college from 40 to 30 students was quashed, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners.
|
