Summary
The Supreme Court held that section 37 of the Architects Act protects the title and style of architect without reserving architectural activities exclusively to registered architects. Its title restriction nevertheless applies to government posts. NOIDA could permit unregistered persons to perform architectural work, but could not appoint them to posts using that protected designation; it remained free to adopt an alternative name consistent with the Act.
Issues
- Whether section 37 prohibits unregistered persons from performing architectural activities.
- Whether government employment permits unregistered persons to hold posts using the title or style of architect.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(a), 2(e), 17, 23 and 35, Architects Act, 1972Define the registered architect and the statutory effect of registration, including references in other laws. (¶¶ 22, 23, 35, 36)
- Section 37, Architects Act, 1972Protects the title and style of architect, subject to its exceptions, rather than prohibiting architectural activities by all unregistered persons; applies equally to public employment. (¶¶ 24, 26, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39)
Held
- The statutory text distinguishes use of a title from practice of a profession. Section 37 contains a title restriction, unlike the express practice restrictions in the medical and legal statutes. Its legislative history confirms that architectural activities were not reserved exclusively to registered architects. (¶¶ 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- The earlier Supreme Court orders relied upon by the Council, read as a whole, did not establish an exclusive right of practice for registered architects; the apparently contrary negative in one sentence was inadvertent. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- A government designation such as Associate Architect carries a representation of registered architectural qualifications and is not mere nomenclature. Section 37 makes no distinction between government employees and private persons. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- NOIDA could set recruitment criteria, but delegated rules and policy must conform to other primary legislation as well as their parent statute. The High Court wrongly exempted the state-derived promotion policy from compliance with the central Act. (¶¶ 37, 38)
- NOIDA could not recruit or promote persons lacking a qualification recognised by the Act to a post using the protected title or style. It could instead change the post’s designation to an alternative consistent with the Act. (¶ 39)
Result
Appeals partly allowed without costs. The High Court’s conclusion on freedom to perform architectural activities affirmed; its conclusion permitting protected architectural designations for unregistered persons disapproved.