In a recent legal case, the court delves into the intricate analysis of Sections 21 and 45 of the Architects Act, 1972, regarding Architectural Education Regulations. The judgment sheds light on the authority and scope of regulations, emphasizing the importance of legal clarity in educational standards. Stay tuned for a detailed breakdown of the court’s legal analysis.
Facts
- The 1 respondent, a society of professional architects, challenged the ‘Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017’ circulated by the appellant.
- The challenge was based on the lack of prior approval from the Central Government as mandated by Section 45 of The Architects Act, 1972.
- The appellant relied on Section 21 of the Act to defend their position.
- The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communications.
Also Read: Undisclosed Conviction for Dharna Under Police Act Leads to Overturned Election
Arguments
- The inter-play between Section 21 and Section 45 of the Act is now of mere academic importance.
- Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the question of law is of importance and presented arguments.
Also Read: Critical Analysis of Legal Principles in a High-Profile Criminal Case
Analysis
- Section 21 does not contain a stipulation for the Council to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education by regulation.
- Section 22 confers power on the Council to prescribe standards of professional conduct and ethics only through regulations.
- The communication dated 03.12.2018 aimed at streamlining institutions providing architectural education.
- Minimum standards for architectural education are covered by clauses (e), (g), and (h) of Section 45(2) and not Section 21.
- The High Court did not consider objections raised regarding the nature of communications issued by the appellant.
- Regulations issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 45(2) and Section 21 superseded 1983 Regulations.
- The Council may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education through regulations or other means.
- The requirement of approval under Section 45(1) is necessary only for regulations prescribing standards.
- The communications challenged in the writ petition were not part of regulations framed by the appellant under Section 45(1).
- Section 21 is invoked along with Section 45(2) due to the nature of standards relating to professional conduct and ethics for architects.
- Educational institutions did not challenge the communications before the High Court.
- 2020 Regulations issued after the Madras High Court judgment were based on clauses (e), (g), (h), and (j) of Section 45 with Section 21.
- Section 22 confers substantive power upon the Council to prescribe standards of professional conduct.
- Section 45(2)(i) deals with the procedural power.
- Argument on the inter-play between Sections 21 and 45 of the Act.
- Section 21 gives the Council the authority to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education.
- Section 45 empowers the Council to make regulations with the approval of the Central Government.
- Regulations may cover matters such as management, professional conduct, and ethics for architects.
- Appellant provided a comparison chart of 1983 Regulations vs. 2017 Prescriptions showing differences.
- Key changes in 2018 were in duration of architecture programme, admission criteria, intake, courses, examinations, and standards.
- 1st respondent (writ petitioner) might only be affected by changes related to teaching faculty.
- High Court failed to address crucial issues related to the impact of the prescriptions on the teaching faculty.
Also Read: Interpretation of Stamp Duty Provisions
Decision
- The appeal is allowed.
- The impugned order is set aside.
- The writ petition filed by the 1 respondent before the High Court is dismissed.
- No costs are awarded.
Case Title: COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE Vs. THE ACADEMIC SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS (TASA) (2022 INSC 181)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001320-001320 / 2022
