9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1447 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - use of the title Architect under Section 37 of the Architects Act 1972 - Section 37 of the Architects Act 1972 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 prohibits unregistered individuals from carrying out the practice of architecture and its cognate activities. Does Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibit individuals not registered as architects under the Architects Act from practicing the activities undertaken by architects, including the design, supervision and construction of buildings? - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of section 37, the legal prohibition created is on the use of the title and style of architect . Title and style are distinct from practice. While a prohibition on the use of a title merely restricts an individual from attaching the said title to their name in referring to or representing themselves to others, a prohibition on practice creates a bar on the actual undertaking of specific actions. The most compelling evidence that the two concepts are materially distinct is the varied usage of the two phrases by the legislature. It is well settled that 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. Where it is contended that a particular interpretation would lead to defeating the very object of a legislation, such an interpretative outcome would clearly be absurd or unreasonable. To determine whether the interpretation arrived at on a plain reading of the provision truly defeats the object of the statute as a whole, we may briefly delve into the legislative history of the Architects Act. To answer the question whether reading Section 37 as a prohibition merely on the use of the title and style of Architect by unregistered individuals would in truth defeat the object and purpose of the Architects Act this Court may examine the reasons behind the enactment as a whole. It is evident that the legislature did not intend to create a prohibition on the practice of architecture and associated activities by unregistered individuals. As opposed to the case of physicians or surgeons under the Indian Medical Council Act or advocates under the Advocates Act, the legislature consciously chose to employ a less stringent measure in the case of architects, merely prohibiting unregistered individuals from using the title and style of architect. It is not for this Court to delve into why the legislature made this choice. However, during the course of these proceedings a cogent and pragmatic reason for this choice has been placed before this Court, by the learned Attorney General of India and by way of the erudite opinion of Chief Justice Raveendran in the decision in Mukesh Kumar Manhar to which we may briefly advert. Architecture undoubtedly constitutes a highly specialised profession requiring the possession of minimum educational qualifications. However, architects are by and large engaged by means of a contract for services. In other words, architects provide a set of specialised services towards the larger goal of construction. Architects are not embarking on construction independently of other actors. 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. The decision of the High Court of Allahabad affirmed and it is held that 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. Whether a post titled Architect , Associate architect or any other similar title using the term or style of Architect can be held by a person not registered as an architect under the Architects Act? - HELD THAT - Section 37 does not prohibit the practice of architecture by unregistered individuals, it certainly does prohibit unregistered individuals from using the title and style of architect. Under the scheme of the Architects Act, only individuals possessing the statutorily recognised minimum educational qualifications can apply for registration as an Architect under the Act. Registration as an architect under the statute is thus a guarantee of possessing certain minimum educational qualifications. Section 37 prohibits unregistered individuals from designating themselves or referring to themselves as architects . The consequence of this regulatory regime is that when an individual is called an Architect a reasonable person would assume that they are a registered architect under the Architects Act and as a consequence possess the requisite educational qualifications and specialised knowledge associated with architects. If an individual is appointed to a post titled Associate Architect , Architect or Senior Architect , they undoubtedly refer to themselves and are referred to by others as Architects . Holding a post using the term Architect has the real-world consequence of being referred to as an architect. This is not a matter of mere nomenclature - 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. This assumption finds statutory backing in Section 35 of the Architects Act which provides that any reference to an architect in any other law shall be deemed to mean an architect registered under the Architects 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 Section 37 of the Architects Act. The distinction made by the Allahabad High Court, that the Promotion Policy 2005 was passed under a state legislation, namely the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, and thus did not need to comport with the terms of the Architects Act as a central legislation is incorrect. 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 - the decision of High Court of Allahabad disapproved and it is held that 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 . However, the authority is free to change the nomenclature of the post to any alternative as long as it does not violate the provisions of the Architects Act by using the style and title of architect in its name. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972. 2. Validity of the Promotion Policy 2005 of NOIDA. 3. Use of the title "Architect" by individuals not registered under the Architects Act. 4. Applicability of the Architects Act to government employees. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972 The primary question was whether Section 37 of the Architects Act merely prohibits the use of the title "Architect" by individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture or if it also prohibits unregistered individuals from practicing architecture. The court held that Section 37 only prohibits unregistered individuals from using the title "Architect" and does not bar them from practicing architecture. The judgment emphasized the distinction between the use of a title and the practice of a profession, noting that the text of Section 37 explicitly restricts only the former. The court referenced the legislative history and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Architects Act, which clarified that the Act aims to protect the title "Architect" but does not restrict the practice of architecture to registered individuals. Issue 2: Validity of the Promotion Policy 2005 of NOIDA The Promotion Policy 2005 allowed for the promotion of individuals to the post of Associate Architect without requiring a degree in architecture recognized under the Architects Act. The High Court of Allahabad had upheld the policy, stating that it did not contravene Section 37 of the Architects Act. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that Section 37 does not prohibit unregistered individuals from practicing architecture. Therefore, the Promotion Policy 2005 did not violate the Architects Act in allowing such promotions. Issue 3: Use of the Title "Architect" by Individuals Not Registered Under the Architects Act The court held that while Section 37 does not prohibit the practice of architecture by unregistered individuals, it does prohibit them from using the title "Architect." This prohibition extends to government posts titled "Architect" or "Associate Architect." The court disapproved of the High Court of Allahabad's view that the title of a post is mere nomenclature. It held that using the title "Architect" for a post implies that the individual holding the post is registered under the Architects Act and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. Therefore, NOIDA cannot promote or recruit individuals who do not hold a degree in architecture recognized by the Architects Act to a post titled "Architect" or similar. Issue 4: Applicability of the Architects Act to Government Employees The court held that the prohibition on the use of the title "Architect" under Section 37 applies to both private individuals and government employees. This was in line with the decision of the High Court of Gauhati in Tulya Gogoi v. Association of Architects, which rejected the argument that the prohibition only applied to private individuals. The court emphasized that the text of Section 37 makes no distinction between government employees and private individuals, thereby ensuring that the regulatory framework of the Architects Act is uniformly applicable. Conclusion The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, affirming that Section 37 of the Architects Act does not prohibit unregistered individuals from practicing architecture but does prohibit them from using the title "Architect." It held that NOIDA cannot title a post "Architect" or "Associate Architect" for individuals who do not hold a degree in architecture recognized by the Architects Act. NOIDA, however, is free to change the nomenclature of the post to avoid violating the provisions of the Architects Act.
|
