# ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. SHRI PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 15 S.C.R. 464
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-11-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ranjan Gogoi, Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-india-council-for-technical-education-v-shri-prince-shivaji-maratha-33393
- **Pages:** 60

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions - Architectural course -
Institutions running said course - Norms and standards for - Issue
as to the final authority in case of any contradiction in the opinion
of Council of Architecture (CoA) [constituted under the 1972 Act]
and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) [constituted
under the 1987 Act], in the matters of grant of approval to
institutions for conducting the said course and monitoring their
working - Seven matters involving similar controversy - In main
appeal C.A. No.364 of 2005, the dispute pertains to intake capacity
of the respondent-institution - CoA on carrying out inspection of
the institution in 2004 restored the intake capacity of 40 students
per year which was earlier reduced to 30 - However, the Director
of Technical Education fixed the same at 30 students on the basis
of norms fixed by AICTE - Challenged - High Court inter alia
upheld the power of CoA as the final authority for fixing the norms
and standards of institutions running course on architecture - On
appeal, held: So far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of
architecture education is concerned, the 1972 Act shall prevail -
AICTE not entitled to impose any regulatory measure in connection
with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of architecture -
Judgment of the Bombay High Court sustained in the main appeal
- In civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.5400 of 2011, the
process of recognition contained in the 1972 Act be implemented
in respect of the subject institution before any further admission
takes place - But, admissions already undertaken in terms of
interim orders of Supreme Court, not to be disturbed - It is so
directed, as the High Court itself directed compliance of CoA norms
and building requirements set by it was to be effected within one
year - AICTE not to have any regulatory control over the
concerned institution so far as architecture education is concerned
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 464
464
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
- Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.8443 of 2011 is dismissed -
Further, in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.20460 of 2011,
decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court issuing directions
contained in the judgment under appeal in absence of CoA being
impleaded is erroneous - However, no independent directions
issued as these appeals were heard together as batch matters and
the grievances of CoA have been addressed in the judgment - Civil
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17005 and 17006 of 2016 are
disposed of in terms of the decision in the main appeal - In appeal
arising out of SLP(C)No.28121 of 2018, the decision of the Kerala
High Court is set aside - Institution involved is entitled to operate
with recognition obtained under the 1972 Act - Interim orders
passed in these appeals, dissolved - Architects Act, 1972 - ss.2(d),
3, 14-21, 25, 35, 43-45 - All India Council of Technical Education
Act, 1987 - ss. 2(g), 3, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25- All India Council for
Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new technical
institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval
of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes)
Regulations, 1994 - All India Council for Technical Education
(Norms and Guidelines for Fees and guidelines for admission in
Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 - Council of Architecture
Regulations, 1982 - Part VIII- Clauses 29, 30 - Minimum
Standards of Architectural Education Regulations 1983 - Clauses
5, 8; Appendix B, C - Minimum Standards of Architectural
Education Regulation, 2015 - Constitution of India - Art.77 -
Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes - Former and later Acts - Clashing
provisions - Overlapping provisions in the 1972 Act (under which
the Council of Architecture (CoA) is constituted) and the 1987 Act
(under which the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
is constituted) on the question of grant of approval and subsequent
monitoring of architectural education - Plea on behalf of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,936 of 139,082. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39936 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
v.
SHRI PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA BOARDING
HOUSE'S COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2005)
NOVEMBER 08, 2019
 [RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, DEEPAK GUPTA
AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Architectural course -
Institutions running said course - Norms and standards for - Issue
as to the final authority in case of any contradiction in the opinion
of Council of Architecture (CoA) [constituted under the 1972 Act]
and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) [constituted
under the 1987 Act], in the matters of grant of approval to
institutions for conducting the said course and monitoring their
working - Seven matters involving similar controversy - In main
appeal C.A. No.364 of 2005, the dispute pertains to intake capacity
of the respondent-institution - CoA on carrying out inspection of
the institution in 2004 restored the intake capacity of 40 students
per year which was earlier reduced to 30 - However, the Director
of Technical Education fixed the same at 30 students on the basis
of norms fixed by AICTE - Challenged - High Court inter alia
upheld the power of CoA as the final authority for fixing the norms
and standards of institutions running course on architecture - On
appeal, held: So far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of
architecture education is concerned, the 1972 Act shall prevail -
AICTE not entitled to impose any regulatory measure in connection
with the degrees and diplomas in the subject of architecture -
Judgment of the Bombay High Court sustained in the main appeal
- In civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.5400 of 2011, the
process of recognition contained in the 1972 Act be implemented
in respect of the subject institution before any further admission
takes place - But, admissions already undertaken in terms of
interim orders of Supreme Court, not to be disturbed - It is so
directed, as the High Court itself directed compliance of CoA norms
and building requirements set by it was to be effected within one
year - AICTE not to have any regulatory control over the
concerned institution so far as architecture education is concerned
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 464
464
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
- Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.8443 of 2011 is dismissed -
Further, in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.20460 of 2011,
decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court issuing directions
contained in the judgment under appeal in absence of CoA being
impleaded is erroneous - However, no independent directions
issued as these appeals were heard together as batch matters and
the grievances of CoA have been addressed in the judgment - Civil
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17005 and 17006 of 2016 are
disposed of in terms of the decision in the main appeal - In appeal
arising out of SLP(C)No.28121 of 2018, the decision of the Kerala
High Court is set aside - Institution involved is entitled to operate
with recognition obtained under the 1972 Act - Interim orders
passed in these appeals, dissolved - Architects Act, 1972 - ss.2(d),
3, 14-21, 25, 35, 43-45 - All India Council of Technical Education
Act, 1987 - ss. 2(g), 3, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25- All India Council for
Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new technical
institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval
of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes)
Regulations, 1994 - All India Council for Technical Education
(Norms and Guidelines for Fees and guidelines for admission in
Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 - Council of Architecture
Regulations, 1982 - Part VIII- Clauses 29, 30 - Minimum
Standards of Architectural Education Regulations 1983 - Clauses
5, 8; Appendix B, C - Minimum Standards of Architectural
Education Regulation, 2015 - Constitution of India - Art.77 -
Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes - Former and later Acts - Clashing
provisions - Overlapping provisions in the 1972 Act (under which
the Council of Architecture (CoA) is constituted) and the 1987 Act
(under which the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
is constituted) on the question of grant of approval and subsequent
monitoring of architectural education - Plea on behalf of AICTE
that the 1987 Act being later statute, covering common field, the
provisions of the 1972 Act, to the extent the same deals with
architectural education, shall be deemed to have been repealed by
implication - Held: It is not an absolute proposition of law that a
later Act would always prevail over the former in the event there
are clashing provisions even if there is no express provision of
repeal - Architects Act, 1972 - All India Council of Technical
Education Act, 1987.
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Interpretation of Statutes - Special law vis-a-vis general law
- Council of Architecture (CoA) constituted under the 1972 Act and
the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) constituted
under the 1987 Act - Overlapping powers on the aspect of setting
norms for architectural education and for monitoring the
institutions engaged in imparting such education - Held: A special
law implies a statute covering a particular subject specifically -
Subject of conflict in the present proceedings is architectural
education - 1972 Act however does not solely deal with
architectural education - Further, the 1987 Act has certain features
of a special law being devoted to setting up, supervision and
monitoring of institutions imparting technical education, but it does
not cover technical education imparted by all types of institutions
- Having regard to the scheme and provisions of these two statutes,
ex-facie it is difficult to label either of them as special law or general
law - Architects Act, 1972 - All India Council of Technical
Education Act, 1987.
Interpretation of Statutes - Principle of implied repeal -
Application of - Overlapping of powers between the Council of
Architecture (CoA) constituted under the 1972 Act and the All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE) constituted under the
1987 Act, on the aspect of setting norms for architectural education
and monitoring the institutions engaged in imparting such
education - Dominant purpose of the two legislations - Held:
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 - Registration of an architect is dependent upon
acquisition of such recognised qualification - 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- AICTE failed to discharge onus to establish that the
provisions of the 1972 Act was repealed by implication - Architects
Act, 1972 - All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g).
Architects Act, 1972 - s.17 - Non-obstante clause -
Implication of - Discussed.
All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 - s.2(g)
- Subject of conflict in the instant cases is architectural education
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
as under the 1972 Act and the 1987 Act there are overlapping
areas under which the respective Councils i.e. Council of
Architecture (CoA) and the All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) could make Regulations - Plea that the context
of regulating architecture education requires exclusion of the
expression "architecture" from the definition of technical education
- Held: So far as these appeals are concerned, to altogether
exclude architecture from the purview of AICTE, that expression,
i.e. architecture would have to be dropped from the definition of
technical education - If the issue is examined in the external
context, which in this case would be the provisions of 1972 Act,
such a course would be inevitable - A meaning different to what
is ascribed in the definition clause can be given to a word in
different parts of a statute if the context so demands - Subjectdispute involved in these appeals requires omission of the word
architecture from the definition of technical education - Such
course is also a permissible tool of construction to prevent absurd
or unworkable results flowing from a statute - In respect of the
provisions of s.2 (g), the definition of "technical education" would
have to be given such a construction and the word "architecture"
should be treated to have been inapplicable in cases where the
AICTE imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking
technical education - There would however be no substitution
because the context would not demand it - Architects Act, 1972 -
Interpretation of Statutes.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Both the regulatory authorities under the
respective statutes have power to frame regulations for giving
effect to the provisions of the respective Acts. Both the statutes
have provisions for approval and monitoring of architecture
courses run by institutions. So far as the Architects Act, 1972
is concerned, the expression employed is recognition of
qualification and the ultimate authority for granting or
withdrawing recognition to degree or diploma courses in
architectural education by different academic institutions is the
Central Government. The CoA under the statutory scheme
however has significant role in such decision making process.
AICTE has also been empowered under the All India Council
of Technical Education Act, 1987 to lay down standards and
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
norms for courses on architecture along with other subjects
coming within the term "technical education". Under Section
3(3)(b), of the 1972 Act, the CoA is required to have two persons
nominated by the AICTE. On the other hand, Section 3 (4) (m)
of the 1987 Act stipulates that AICTE is to consist of
representatives of various bodies, including a member to be
appointed by the Central Government to represent the CoA.
Section 10(k) of the 1987 Act requires AICTE to grant approval
in consultation with the agencies concerned. [Paras 19, 25] [492B-E]
1.2 Section 20 of the 1972 Act deals with withdrawal of
recognition of an authority listed in the Schedule to the Act.
Section 21 of the 1972 Act also empowers the Council to
prescribe minimum standards of architectural education required
for granting recognized qualifications by colleges or institutions
in India. The power of the CoA to examine infrastructural
facilities at the time of considering the application for recognition
or monitoring the quality of an institution recognized by the
Council stems from Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the 1972 Act.
Further, none of the Regulations produced however specify the
actual norms but refer to standards and norms to be laid down
for approval of technical institutions, which include institutions
imparting architectural education. [Paras 27, 32] [493-F-H; 494A-B; 499-B]
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and Others v. Union of India and
Others (1984) 3 SCC 127 : [1984] 3 SCR 252 ; State
of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Adhiyaman Educational
Research Institute and Others (1995) 4 SCC 104 :
[1995] 2 SCR 1075 ; Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others
(2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017] 13 SCR 921 ; Parshvnath
Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for
Technical Education and Others (2013) 3 SCC 385 :
[2012] 11 SCR 1057 - distinguished.
Varun Saini & Ors. v. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha
University (2014) 16 SCC 330 - referred to.
2. AICTE has referred to a communication emanating from
the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
India, bearing No.F.17 11/2003 TS.IV. No case has been made
out that the memorandum to which reference has been made,
has been published in the official gazette. This memorandum does
not meet the requirement of valid exercise of power under the
aforesaid two provisions by the Central Government so as to
make it binding. This memorandum, at best, can be treated to
be an advisory of the Ministry not having enforceable effect.
Moreover, the aforesaid memorandum has been issued beyond
the timeframe laid down under the provisions of the statutes
reproduced in the said two sections of the respective Acts. The
memorandum also cannot be treated to be an executive order
under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 37, 39] [502B; 503-F-H]
3. As a proposition of law, AICTE's stand is accepted that
there need not be complete identity in the subject-matters of
the two rival statutes being tested in the yardstick of point of
time of their commencement of operation. It is not an absolute
proposition of law that a later Act would always prevail over the
former in the event there are clashing provisions even if there
is no express provision of repeal. Further, a special law implies
a statute covering a particular subject specifically. The subject
of conflict in the present proceedings is architectural education.
The 1972 Act however does not solely deal with architectural
education. The Act intends to control or regulate the profession
of architects. It has two main features, one part dealing with
regulating the profession of architect and the other part
regulating architectural education. Significant portion of the
statute deals with formation of the CoA but the function of that
body is essentially to regulate and monitor the other two areas
of this statue. The 1987 Act deals with technical education and
in particular the methodology for approval technical institutions
and their monitoring. The provisions of 1987 Act have not been
immunised by a non-obstante clause like the one employed in
Section 17 of the 1972 Act. Having regard to the scheme and
provisions of these two statutes, ex-facie it is difficult to label
either of them as special law or general law. The 1987 Act has
certain features of a special law being devoted to setting up,
supervision and monitoring of institutions imparting technical
education. But the said statute does not cover technical
education imparted by all types of institutions. The exceptions
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
have been clearly mentioned in Section 2(h) of the act and
explained in the cases of Bharathidasan University and
Association of Management of private colleges. So far as the
1972 Act is concerned, its application is not confined to
architecture education alone. This enactment contemplates
establishing the Council of Architecture, recognizing degrees
and diplomas in architecture and regulating the profession of
architects. But there is inter-link between architecture education
and registration of architects. Further, the three regulations
under the 1987 Act do not directly lay down any specific norm
or standard which ought to be followed. Such norms appear to
have been set by the AICTE in pursuance of the aforesaid
regulations. The two Regulations of 1994 do not lay down
specifically such norms. The 2016 regulations has provision for
Approval Process Hand Book which may be published from time
to time laying down the manner in which approval shall be given.
[Paras 47-51] [511-E-F; 512-B-D-F; 513-A-C, F-G]
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998)
8 SCC 1 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359 ; K.V. Muthu v.
Angamuthu Ammal (1997) 2 SCC 53 [1996] 10 Suppl.
SCR 188 ; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asstt. CTO (1994)
2 SCC 434 ; [1994] 1 SCR 682 ; Pushpa Devi v.
Milkhi Ram (1990) 2 SCC 134 : [1990] 1 SCR 278 -
relied on.
M/s. Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab and
Others [1962] Supp 1 SCR 913 ; A.B. Abdulkadir v.
State of Kerala.1962 Supp (2) SCR 741 ; Assn. of
Registration Plates v. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 679
: [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 496 ; Tika Ramji v. State of
U.P. [1956] 1 SCR 393 ; R.S. Raghunath v. State of
Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR
387 ; U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain
(1978) 4 SCC 16 : [1979] 2 SCR 355 ; J.K. Cotton
Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
[1961] 3 SCR 185 ; Association of Management of
Private Colleges v. All India Council of Technical
Education and Others (2013) 8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6
SCR 1054 - referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
4. For the sole reason of there being overlapping subjects,
Courts straightaway may not get into an exercise to find out if
one statute intends to eclipse the other. The duty of the
regulatory bodies in a situation of this nature would be to come
out with a unified regime, which this Court expected in the case
of Municipal Council, Palia. The two regulatory bodies in the
field of architectural education however have not taken this
approach and on the other hand have engaged themselves in a
dispute over turf-control. In such a situation, under normal
circumstances attempt should be made first at reconciliation of
the competing statutory instruments. If that exercise fails, then
the aim would be to find out what is the dominant purpose or
principal subject-matter of a particular statute and then construe
the conflicting provisions of the respective Regulations to match
the dominant statutory purpose. The process of recognition and
effect thereof are more expansive under the 1972 Act. All
"authorities" require recognition by the Central Government to
conduct any degree or diploma course in architecture education
to qualify for being recognised qualification. The CoA under the
said Act plays a key role in the process of recognition. There is
no exclusion or exemption of any institution from undergoing
such recognition process except the subsisting ones at the time
the Act became operational. The CoA has also wide monitoring
power under Section 18 and 19 of the Act of every authority
which grants recognized qualification under the said Act.
Moreover, Section 17 of the said Act is armed with a nonobstante clause. The implication of the said clause in Section 17
of the 1972 Act is that to be on the register of architects in India,
recognized qualification would be sufficient. There is no
provision under the 1972 Act or in any Rule thereunder which
would entitle a person trained from an AICTE approved technical
institution in architecture to describe himself as an architect or
get himself registered as such without recognised qualification
under the 1972 Act. The scheme of the Act thus demonstrates
that lack of recognized qualification under the 1972 Act would
in substance disentitle a person from being registered as an
architect. He would not be able to legally represent himself as
an architect in India. This being the statutory mandate, CoA's
role in the process of recognition of qualification of an architect
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
cannot be said to have been obliterated by the 1987 Act. It is a
fact that 1987 Act is primarily concerned with setting-up and
running of a technical institution and not with regulating the
professions of individuals qualifying from such institutions. But
under the 1972 Act, conducting a course on architectural
education and regulating the profession of architect are
statutorily interwoven. Recognition of degrees or diplomas in
architecture cannot be amputated from the said Act and held to
have been replaced by the 1987 Act. That would render the 1972
enactment unworkable. The third distinguishing element of the
1972 Act is that the CoA is not the ultimate decision-making
authority but it is the Central Government in relation to process
of recognition of degree or diploma in architectural education
or withdrawal thereof. Such decision is required to be taken
after consultation with the CoA. But since CoA has been
conferred with power to make regulations in relation to, interalia, recognition norms and monitoring of institutions imparting
architectural education, CoA's role in such process is critical.
The approval power of AICTE is direct. But in the event
AICTE's norms come into conflict with that of CoA, any report
or representation the CoA may make to the Central
Government would be dependent upon the decision of the
Central Government. The Central Government's decision, taken
under the provisions of the 1972 Act in such a case would
obviously prevail, the latter being an authority superior to both
the Councils constituted under the two statutes. [Paras 54, 5759] [515-F-H; 516-A; 517-B-E-H; 518-A-E]
Municipal Council Palai v. T.J. Joseph [1964] 2 SCR
87 ; LIC v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC 315 : [1981]
1 SCR 1083 - relied on.
"Principles of Statutory Interpretation" by Justice G.P.
Singh (14th Edition)- referred to.
5.1 AICTE is exercising its power to regulate institutions
imparting architectural education on the strength of definition
of technical education, which has been defined to mean
programmes of education, research and training in architecture.
The duty of the AICTE to regulate "technical education" is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
derived from the provisions of Section 10 of the 1987 Act. So
far as these appeals are concerned, to altogether exclude
architecture from the purview of AICTE, that expression, i.e.
architecture would have to be dropped from the definition of
technical education. If the issue is examined in the external
context, which in this case would be the provisions of 1972 Act,
such a course would be inevitable. In the event AICTE's stand
is to be accepted and CoA's role is eliminated from the
recognition process of architectural qualification, then a person
having a degree or diploma from an AICTE approved institution
only would in effect not be entitled to enrollment in the register
of architects and would not be able to represent himself as an
architect. Secondly, in view of the decisions of this Court in the
cases of Bharatidasan University and Association of Management
of Private Colleges, there would be two parallel authorities
regulating architectural education. CoA would regulate
universities and affiliated colleges imparting such education
while AICTE would supervise rest of the institutions. Moreover,
the authority of Central Government to recognize qualifications
in architecture education would stand obliterated by a body,
AICTE and that too in respect of certain categories of technical
institutions only. The subject-dispute involved in these appeals
requires omission of the word architecture from the definition
of technical education. Such a course is also a permissible tool
of construction to prevent absurd or unworkable results flowing
from a statute. [Paras 60-62] [518-F-G; 519-D-H; 520-A]
"Bennion on Statutory Interpretation" by F A R
Bennion, Fifth Edition published by Lexis Nexis (at
page 972) - referred to.
5.2 In respect of the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the 1987
Act, the definition of "technical education" would have to be
given such a construction and the word "architecture" should
be treated to have been inapplicable in cases where the AICTE
imports its regulatory framework for institutions undertaking
technical education. There would however be no substitution
because the context would not demand it. This construction of
the definition clause is necessary as the external context
requires it to prevent an unworkable outcome in implementation
of the 1987 Act. The principle of implied repeal cannot apply so
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
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. AICTE
has failed to discharge its onus to establish the said provisions
of the 1972 Act was repealed by implication. [Para 63] [520-CF]
6. 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. Individual appeals - (a) The judgment
of the Bombay High Court forming subject-matter of Appeal
No.364 of 2005 is sustained. The appeal of the All India Council
of Technical Education is dismissed. (b) Three appeals arose
from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Gwalior Bench delivered on 2nd February, 2011 in W.P. No. 315
of 2011. Rajeev Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalyalay is the
appellant in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 5400/
2011. The appellant in the second Civil Appeal (arising out of
SLP(C)No.8443/2011) is the institution, Bharatiya Vidya Mandir
Shiksha Samiti. For the reasons explained earlier in this
judgment, the appeal of Bharatiya Vidya Mandir Shiksha Samiti
is dismissed. The High Court has directed in the judgment under
appeal compliance of the conditions communicated by the CoA.
The academic session involved is 2010-2011. Supreme Court at
the notice stage in the university's appeal [SLP(C)No.5400 of
2011] granted interim stay of the order of the High Court.
Subsequently, there were admissions from time to time with
interim directions of this Court. This appeal of the Rajeev Gandhi
Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya is accordingly disposed of with
direction that the process of recognition contained in the 1972
Act ought to be implemented in respect of the subject institution
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
before any further admission takes place. But so far as
admissions already undertaken in terms of interim orders of this
Court, it is directed that such admissions ought not be disturbed.
It is directed so, as it is found the High Court itself had directed
compliance of CoA norms in the judgment under appeal and
compliance of building requirements set by CoA was to be
effected within one year. Thus, CoA norms were substantially
directed to be complied with. It is also made clear that the
AICTE would not have any regulatory control over the
concerned institution so far as architecture education is
concerned. In the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.20460 of 2011
that CoA ought to have been impleaded as a party respondent
in the said writ petition. Decision of the High Court to issue the
directions contained in the judgment under appeal in absence
of CoA being added in the array of respondents was erroneous.
But any independent direction is not issued as these appeals
were heard together as batch matters and the grievances of the
CoA have been addressed to in the judgment. (c) The Civil
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No. 17005 of 2016 and
SLP(C)No.17006 of 2016 have been instituted by the AICTE
against a common judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ
Appeal No.110 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No. 112 of 2013. The
observation of the Karnataka High Court in a common judgment
has been that the controversies would be subject to the outcome
of the appeal arising out of the Bench decision of the Bombay
High Court. That is the first appeal we have dealt with in this
judgment. These two appeals are accordingly disposed of in
terms of the decision contained in the preceding sub-paragraph
(a). AICTE would not have any power to impose its regulatory
measures on the concerned institution so far as architecture
education is concerned. (d) The decision of the Kerala High
Court in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No. 28121 of 2018
is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The institution involved in
this appeal shall be entitled to operate with recognition obtained
under the 1972 Act. All interim orders passed in these appeals
shall stand dissolved. All connected applications shall stand
disposed of. [Paras 64-66] [520-F-H; 521-A-H; 522-A-H; 523A-B]
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education & Others (2001) 8
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
SCC 676 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 ; Khayti Girish
Purnima Kulkarni v. College of Architecture & Ors.
(2012) 4 AIR BOM R 371; Thejus College of
Architecture v. State of Kerala & Ors. Decision dated.
6th August 2018 of High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)
No. 23858 of 2018 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253
referred to
Para 10
(2012) 4 AIR BOM R 371
referred to
Para 14
[1984] 3 SCR 252
distinguished
Para 34
[1995] 2 SCR 1075
distinguished
Para 34
[2017] 13 SCR 921
distinguished
Para 34
[2012] 11 SCR 1057
distinguished
Para 34
(2014) 16 SCC 330
referred to
Para 34
[1962] 1 Supp SCR 913
referred to
Para 40
[1962] 2 Supp SCR 741
referred to
Para 40
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 496
referred to
Para 41
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 359
relied on
Para 41
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 188
relied on
Para 41
[1994] 1 SCR 682
relied on
Para 41
[1990] 1 SCR 278
relied on
Para 41
[1964] 2 SCR 87
relied on
Para 42
[1956] 1 SCR 393
referred to
Para 42
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387
referred to
Para 42
[1981] 1 SCR 1083
relied on
Para 42
[1979] 2 SCR 355
referred to
Para 42
[1961] 3 SCR 185
referred to
Para 42
[2013] 6 SCR 1054
referred to
Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 364
of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5942 of 2004.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8506, 8507, 8511, 8509, 8508, 8510 of 2019.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advs., Harish Pandey,
Anil Soni, Ms. Siddhi Padia, Naveen R. Nath, Niraj Sharma, Ashok
Mathur, Ms. Charu Mathur, Shibashish Misra, Rajdipa Bheura, Ms.
Hansika Sahu, A. Venayagam Balan, Ms. V. S. Lakshmi, Vijay Kumar,
Thomas O., Aniruddha P. Mayee, Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Usman
Ghani Khan, Radha Shyam Jena, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari,
Manendra Pal Gupta, Ms. Binu Tamta, G. S. Makker, Ms. Sushma Suri,
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Vijay Kumar, Thomas O., Ms. Bharti Tyagi,
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Naresh Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, T. C. Sharma,
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Anoop Kandari, Rahul Jain, Milind Kumar, Gautam
Narayan, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rahul Pratap, Abhishek Roy, Ms. Shruti
Choudhry, Dechen W. Lachungpa, Arun Srikumar, Ms. Pritha Srikumar,
Ms. Mansi Binjrajka, Raghenth Basant, P. V. Dinesh, Sindhu T. P.,
Mukund P. Unny, Raghav Mehrotra, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Mrs.
Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Manoj Ranjan Sinha,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
1. Delay condoned in SLP(C)No.17005 of 2016 and
SLP(C)No.17006 of 2016. Leave is granted in all the six petitions for
special leave to appeal.
2. This set of appeals mainly involves the question as to whether
the mandate of the Council of Architecture (CoA) or that of the All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) would prevail on the
question of granting approval and related matters to an institution for
conducting architectural education course, if there is any contradiction
in the opinions of these two bodies. Both of them are regulatory bodies
constituted by Parliamentary legislations having power to approve or
recognize and thereafter monitor working of such an institution.
3. The CoA owes its origin to the provisions of Section 3 of the
Architects Act, 1972 (the 1972 Act). AICTE has also been constituted
under the provisions of Section 3 of the All India Council of Technical
Education Act, 1987 (the 1987 Act). As the preambles of these two
statutes suggest, the former has been enacted to provide for registration
of Architects and for matters connected therewith. The object of the
latter statute is to provide for a Council with a view to proper planning
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
and coordinated development of the technical education system
throughout the country, promotion of qualitative improvements of such
education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation
and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical
education system and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(g)
of the 1987 Act stipulates:-
"technical education" means programmes of education, research
and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning,
management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such
other programme or areas as the central government may, in
consultation with the Council, by notification in the official
Gazette, declare;"
4. Though the preamble of the 1972 Act projects the aim of the
legislation to provide for registration of architects, this statute also deals
with educational aspects of a course in architecture. Duties of CoA
under the 1972 Act includes undertaking steps for recognizing
qualifications for the purposes of the said Act. Such recognition, as,
contemplated by the Act, is at two levels. There is a schedule to the
Act which lists diplomas and degrees awarded by named Indian and
foreign institutes or bodies. Section 14 of the 1972 Act describes them
as authorities. These degrees and diplomas are recognized qualifications
under the said statute. There is also provision for amendment of the
schedule, so as to incorporate therein architectural qualification granted
by any authority in India. The CoA under the said Act however has
not been conferred with the power to directly recognise the architectural
qualification. The Central government is the authority to undertake that
exercise. CoA under the 1972 statute is a consulting body. The effect
of recognition by the Central Government is that such recognised
qualification shall be sufficient for enrollment in the register of architects
maintained under the said Act. After such registration, a person can
claim to be an architect under the law. Section 25 of the 1972 Act
prescribes three modes for entry into the register, the main one being
holding a recognised qualification. Sub-clause (b) of the said provision
preserves the right of practising architects at the time of initial
preparation of the register. The said sub-clause is not relevant so far
the subject-controversy is involved. Section 25 (c) prescribes as a
condition for entering one's name in the register, possession of such
other qualifications as may be prescribed by the Rules. But no such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
Rule providing for any additional qualification has been brought to our
notice by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. On the question of qualification of architects, Section 2 (d) of
the 1972 Act defines "recognised qualification" to mean any qualification
in architecture for the time being included in the Schedule or notified
under Section 15 thereof. The lis in this set of appeals does not relate
to the provisions of Section 15 of the 1972 Act, which is in respect of
qualification from a foreign educational body.
6. The expression "approval", however, is not employed in the
1972 Act. This Act deals with recognition of qualification in architecture.
Section 14 of the 1972 Act stipulates: -
"14. Recognition of qualifications granted by authorities in
India.- (1) The qualifications included in the Schedule or
notified under Section 15 shall be recognised qualifications for
the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any authority in India which grants an architectural
qualification not included in the Schedule may apply to the Central
Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central
Government, after consultation with the Council, may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule so as to
include such qualification therein, and any such notification may
also direct that an entry shall be made in the Schedule against
such architectural qualification declaring that it shall be a
recognised qualification only when granted after a specified date:
Provided that until the first Council is constituted, the Central
Government shall, before issuing any notification as aforesaid,
consult an Expert Committee consisting of three members to be
appointed by the Central Government by notification in the
Official Gazette."
 7. The power to amend the schedule is vested with the Central
Government under Section 16 of the 1972 Act. This provision reads:-
"16. Power of Central Government to amend Schedule.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section
14, the Central Government, after consultation with the Council,
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule
by directing that an entry be made therein in respect of any
architectural qualification."
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. v. PRINCE SHIVAJI MARATHA
BOARDING HOUSE'S COLLEGE. OF ARCH. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
8. So far as the 1987 Act is concerned, Section 10 thereof, interalia, specifies: -
"POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
10. It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as
it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated
development of technical education and maintenance of standards
and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act,
the Council may:-
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,
physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and
examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and
for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned;
xxx
xxx
xxx
(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical
institutions;
xxx
xxx
xxx
(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,
programmes to such technical institutions which fail to
comply with the directions given by the Council within the
stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may
be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of
the Council;"
9. In this judgment, altogether seven appeals shall be dealt with,
all of which involve the dispute outlined in the first paragraph. The main
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
appeal which has been argued before us in detail is Civil Appeal No.364
of 2005. The appellant in this proceeding is AICTE and its appeal is
against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
delivered on 8th September 2004 in Writ Petition No.5942 of 2004.
Dispute in this matter pertains to intake capacity of an institution by
the name of Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's
College of Architecture. The CoA, on carrying out inspection of the
college in the year 2004 chose to restore the intake capacity of 40
students per year which was reduced to 30 students for two earlier
academic years, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.