THE ARCHITECTS ACT NEEDS REVISION

0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!


On 18th March 2020, The Supreme court has 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.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi observed that a post titled 'Architect', 'Associate architect' or any other similar title using the term or style of 'Architect' cannot be held by a person not registered as an architect under the Architects Act.

In an appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment by the Architecture Council of India, the Apex Court considered these two questions. (1) Does Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibit individuals not registered as architects under the Architects Act from practising the activities undertaken by architects, including the design, supervision and construction of buildings; and (ii) 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.? The High Court had held that Section 37 only prohibits unregistered individuals from using the title "architect". It was further held that the Promotion Policy 2005, which allowed for individuals not holding a degree in architecture being appointed to the Class II post of Associate Architect, did not contravene Section 37 of the Architects Act in so far as they would be carrying out the activities of an architect.

The supreme court has said that there is a loophole within section 37 in defining the unregistered architect's. It is written that individual that not registered under architect act 1942, are not entitled to use title architect and practice architecture. In your case it should be individual who is not architect's and not registered under architect act are not entitled to use the title and practice.

THUS, IT IS A REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE (COA), THAT THEY MUST MAKE A REVISION TO THE ARCHITECTS ACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.