Source:
Between the Council
of Architecture (CoA) and the All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE), the mandate of the CoA would prevail when it comes to the grant of
approvals and recognition of Architecture course degrees are concerned, the
Supreme Court has held.
The judgment
rendered by a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan
Gogoi and comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha
Bose ruled that the AICTE cannot impose any regulatory measured in
relation to Architecture subject in case of a conflict between CoA and AICTE.
The Court was
hearing appeals filed against the Bombay High Court Judgment which had quashed
the order of the AICTE that had fixed a reduced intake number of students to an
Architecture institute. The CoA and the AICTE had, after a joint assessment of
the institute reduced the student intake number from 40 to 30.
After two years, the
institute filed certain compliance reports which led to CoA restoring the
intake number back to 40. However, the AICTE passed an order thereafter, once
again bringing the intake number down to 30. This was challenged by the
institute before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court
quashed the order of the AICTE leading to the current appeal in Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also heard six other appeals raising the identical issue.
In dealing with the
question of which body's mandate would prevail in case of conflict, the Supreme
Court examined the object and purpose of the Statutes under which both these
bodies were formed. The CoA was formed under the Architects Act, 1972 while the
AICTE came into existence under the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987.
The Court also
pointed out that the 1972 Act deals with the registration of Architects and
related issues which involved educational courses whereas the 1987 Act
encompasses the overall development of technical education which includes
Architecture. This is a point which was also highlighted by the High Court
which had further said that the Architects Act of 1972 was not impliedly
repealed by the enactment of the AICTE Act.
In this regard, the
Supreme Court said that the 1972 Act cannot be said to be repealed merely
because the term "technical education" under the AICTE Act also
includes Architecture. The Court said,
"The
principle of implied repeal cannot apply so far as the provisions relating to
architecture education is concerned, on the basis of the 1987 Act having become
operational. One of the dominant purposes of the 1972 Act is recognition of
qualifications on architecture. The registration of an architect is dependent
upon acquisition of such recognised qualification. The said Act cannot be held
to have been repealed by implication for the sole reason of inclusion of the
word “architecture” in the definition of technical education."
The Court thus said
that the definition of "technical education" under Section 2(g) of
the AICTE Act, 1987 would have to be given an interpretation that excludes
architecture and makes it inapplicable to cases where the AICTE exercises its
power to regulate framework for technical education institutes. Thus, the Court
held that the AICTE would not have any power to impose regulatory measures and
the mandate of the CoA would prevail for recognition of qualifications of
Architecture.
"so far as
recognition of degrees and diplomas of architecture education is concerned, the
1972 Act shall prevail. AICTE will not be entitled to impose any regulatory
measure in connection with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of
architecture. Norms and Regulations set by CoA and other specified authorities
under the 1972 Act would have to be followed by an institution imparting
education for degrees and diplomas in architecture."
