Supreme Court clarifies Architects Act—practice by unregistered persons not barred, but government posts cannot use “Architect” title without registration

Case Name: Council of Architecture v. Mukesh Goyal & Ors.

Citation: 2020 INSC 298

Date of Order: 17 March 2020

Bench: Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972 is a prohibition against the use of the title and style of “architect” by persons not registered under the Act; it does not bar unregistered individuals from engaging in architectural functions such as design, supervision, and construction. However, posts in government or authorities that employ the title “Architect,” “Associate Architect,” or similar cannot be held by persons who are not registered architects, because using that title conveys statutory qualification and contravenes Section 37.

Summary: NOIDA’s 2005 Recruitment and Promotion Policy allowed promotions to posts titled “Associate Architect” and “Associate Town Planner” without insisting on a degree in architecture recognized under the Architects Act. The High Court upheld NOIDA’s power and read Section 37 as only protecting the title, permitting unregistered persons to perform architectural work and to continue using the post titles. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, definitions, and the Statement of Objects and Reasons, noting that Parliament chose to protect the title rather than reserve the field of practice, unlike the Advocates Act and the Indian Medical Council Act. The Court affirmed that unregistered persons may perform architectural functions but cannot represent themselves, by designation or nomenclature, as “architects.” Because a post title using “Architect” leads to a reasonable assumption of registration and recognized qualifications, allowing unregistered persons to hold such posts violates Section 37. Subordinate instruments like NOIDA’s policy must yield to central legislation, and any continued use of “Architect” for unregistered appointees is impermissible, though NOIDA is free to rename posts without the protected title.

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. The Court affirmed that practice is not monopolized by registered architects but restrained NOIDA and similar authorities from designating unregistered personnel to posts using the title or style of “Architect,” while permitting change of nomenclature to comply with the Act.