Architects and Town Planners

Written Answers [1 APR. 1966] to Questions.1

SHRI I. K. GUJRAL: Will the Minister of EDUCATION be pleased to state; whether Government propose to introduce a Bill in Parliament to regulate the profession, education and training of architects and town-planners in India: and If so, whether any representation has been received by Government for such an enactment?

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (SHRI M. C. CHAGLA): (a) The question of introducing a Bill to regulate the profession of Architects is under consideration of Government.

(b) Yes, Sir.

SHRI I. K. GUJRAL: This consideration has been there for a very long time. May I ask the hon. Minister if the Bill has already been drafted and if it is likely to be introduced in the next Session?

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: No. Sir. I agree that there has been considerable delay. But we are faced with considerable difficulties also and there are many difficulties in setting up a Council for Architects. One of the main difficulties is that we do not have a sufficient number of architects in our country and the civil engineers say that the Bill should embrace both the civil engineers and the architects. And the architects say that they should be treated as a class apart. That is one of the main difficulties.

SHRI I. K. GUJRAL: It is somewhat surprising that in these days of enlightenment the Education Ministry should be under the pressure of the civil engineers. May I ask the hon. Minister what makes him fuel that there are no sufficient number of architects in the country, and is he not convinced that in the fast urbanisation of the society that is going on in this country the architects have a vital and pivotal role to play, and unless their profession is regulated, there is danger to the entire urban growth of the country?

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: Sir, I entirely agree with my hon. friend that architecture is a very important profession. It should have a Council to regulate its ethics, its examinations and so on. But I assure my hon. friend that we are fully conscious of the necessity for this. But we have been faced with certain difficulties and certain, problems. The matter even went up to the Cabinet. But there are difficulties. And I will do my best to see that this is expedited.

SHRI I. K. GUJRAL: Unfortunately, civil engineers seem to be very important from the pressure point of view. May I ask the hon. Minister if he is willing to give this House an assurance that he will not succumb to the pressure of the civil engineers and see to it that the architects and town planners have their correct place in society so that they can justify the role that they are playing in society?

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: I am not usually in the habit of submitting to pressures either by civil engineers or by anybody else. So, whatever decision I take, I assure my hon. friend that it will not be due to any pressure.

SHRI M. P. BHARGAVA: May I know whether a representation in this connection has also been received from the Architects' Association of India?

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: Yes, Sir. Recently the Institute of Architects has again urged that it was time that the Bill for regulating the profession of architects was introduced in Parliament.

SHRI B. K. P. SINHA: May I know whether, while taking any step to organise this profession, the Government of India would also impress upon the States to insist on good architecture in town-planning? The Government of India themselves could develop an aesthetic sense because I find that Delhi, one of the most well-planned cities, is being ruined by the new buildings that are thrown up without any plan by civil engineers.

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: I think the question should be addressed to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Works, Housing and Urban Development. I am not responsible for the architecture of Delhi.

SHRI GURUDEV GUPTA: May I know what the total number of architects is in the country and if they are all employed?

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: There are about 2,000 architects. I do not know whether they are all employed. But the number is so small that they are doing very well.

SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: The hon. Minister said that the question should be addressed to the Minister of Works, Housing and Urban Development, saying that he is not responsible for this kind of thing. But still he is answering this question. But I assume that he is responsible for cultural things at least.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Responsible for the building of Delhi?

SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: All these things come in the ugly architecture of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Association of ideas.

SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: It is a cultural monstrosity. Therefore, I should like to know from the Minister as to whether, in view of all these things, the matters are being discussed by him with the architects concerned and also with the Ministry concerned?

SHRI M. C. CHAGLA: No, Sir. We have had no discussion as to the building of New Delhi. In a sense, my hon. friend is right. I am responsible for culture but that is a very wide subject and that would make me intrude upon every Ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Question Hour is over.

Government Bills Introduction

The Architects Bill, 19682

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (DR. TRIGUNA SEN): Madam, I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith. The Question was put and the motion was adopted.

DR. TRIGUNA SEN: Madam, I introduce the Bill.

Consideration & Passing/Return/Withdrawal

11—14 RSS/ND/69 15-May-19693


"That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith be referred to a Joint Committee of the Houses consisting of 45 members; 15 Members from this House, namely: —

1. Shri M. Ruthnaswamy.

2. Shri Prem Manohar.

3. Shri Rewati Kant Sinha.

4. Shri Narindar Singh Brar.

5. Shri U. N. Mahida.

6. Shri M. M. Dharia.

7. Shrimati Vidyawati Chatur- vedi.

8. Shri Anand Chand.

9. Shri M. H. Samuel.

10. Shri Baharul Islam.

11. Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy.

12. Shri Syed Hussain.

13. Shri S. K. Singh.

14. Shri A. C. Gilbert.

15. Shri C. L. Varma.

and 30 Members from the Lok Sabha:

  • that in order to constitute a meeting of the Joint Committee the quorum shall be one-third of the total number of members of the Joint Committee;
  • that in other respects, the Rules of Procedure of this House relating to Select Committees shall apply with such variations and modifications as the Chairman may make;
  • that the Committee shall make a report to this House by the 29th day of August, 1969;
  • that this House recommends to the Lok Sabha that the Lok Sabha do join in the said Joint Committee and communicate to this House the names of members to be ap- pointed by the Lok Sabha to the Joint Committee."

Sir, in moving this Bill I do not propose to make a long speech. The House is aware that this subject of registration of architects has been under consideration in one form or another for more than twenty years. This has been under consideration from 1946. At long last, after a great deal of discussion and so on, it was decided that legislation should be introduced for this purpose. A draft Bill was prepared in 1964, sent to all the State Governments' and Central Ministries and technical organisations of architects, engineers and so on and after their opinion was received, the draft Bill was revised and finally it was approved by the Cabinet in September, 1968 after which, Sir, this Bill had been introduced in this House during the last session.

The main features of the Bill really are the registration of persons who will be entitled to practise as architects. Till now there is no legal limitation on the competence of a person to practise as an architect. The people have been practising—the people who have got professional architectural qualifications as also the people who do not have professional qualifications have been practising. This Bill sets out to create an organization which will be competent to register persons as architects. And once these people are registered as architects, then they will have the right to practise as architects. They will also have the right to have appointments as architects in State Governments or the Central Government or in educational institutions. An architect provisionally is defined as a person who not only designs the structure but has also the responsibility for supervising the construction of the structure. A body which is to undertake this registration is called Architects' Registration Council. This Architects' Registration Council will have on it, as the Bill makes it clear, representatives of the Institute of Architects. It will have on it representatives of the Architects employed with the Central Government, the States' Architects and representatives of those who are employed not in the educational world of architecture. It also includes one representative from the Institute of Engineers. This Council is being sought to be given the power to register architects, to hold enquiries relating to misconduct of registered architects for taking suitable action, and to prescribe standards of professional conduct and code of ethics for registered architects.

Regarding the registration, it is clear that something has got to be done about those who are at the moment practising as architects. You cannot just take them out of their jobs by just applying to them qualifications which may legitimately be applied for the future entrants. Therefore, the Bill provides that in the initial enrolment not only will all persons who will have a degree or a diploma in architecture be enrolled but also those who have been practising as architects as their principal source of livelihood for the last five years before the registration and also the members of the Institute of Architects will also be enrolled initially as registered architects. The Bill also provides for such persons to be enrolled who possess qualifications other than the professional architectural qualifications such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Regarding subsequent enrolment, that is, new enrolment that will take place, the new registration of people will be of those who will have a degree or a diploma in architecture recognised by the Central Government as also of those persons who possess such other qualifications as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Normally, Sir, one would have thought that a Bill of this kind would be innocuous and would have needed no reference to the Joint Committee because whatever it seeks to do is to try and create a professional body for registering and looking after the standards of architects and prescribing the qualifications and other conditions for those who will be recognised as architects. But, as the House is aware, just after I took charge of the new ministry, a large number of representations had been received in the Ministry largely, if I may say so, from engineers and from organisations of engineers. It is understandable that in this country it is not only the architects who design and supervise the construction of buildings but as a matter of fact, a large number of engineers have also been undertaking the same kind of work. Therefore, the Government felt that it would be better to take this Bill to a Joint Select Committee where some of these difficulties can be thrashed out. For example, as the Bill stands, it does make provisions for taking care of people who do not have professional architectural degrees because Government is being given power to prescribe other qualifications with the possession of which the people can be recognised as architects by the Architectural Council of India.

SHRI LOKANATH MISRA (Orissa): They will be only licentiates.

PROF. V.K. R.V. RAO: There is a reference in the Bill that the Architectural Council will recognise either those who have taken a degree or dinloma or those who have other qualifications which will be prescribed by the Central Government.

SHRI PITAMBER DAS (Uttar Pradesh): Is it 'or' or 'and'?

PROF. V.K. R.V. RAO: It is 'or' and not 'and'. Anyway, I think there is a certain amount of unease on this matter—I am speaking provisionall; it is subject to correction—and I do not know what might happen at the Joint Committee stage. My own feeling is that with some little amendment, the points that have been raised could be made clear. For example, Sir, on one point there is an anxiety in the minds of the engineers that in the initial stage this Bill may place a restriction on the enrolment of those who might have been doing the actual work of architect. A man who is an architect may design and supervise the construction on his own. I wonder whether a person who wants to design and supervise the construction of a house of his own will also be required to register himself as an architect.

SHRI K. CHANDRASEKHARAN (Kerala): It is meant only for professional people.

PROF. V.K. R. V. RAO: I do not have the knowledge of law.

SHRI K. CHANDRASEKHARAN: It should be made clear.

PROF. V.K. R.V. RAO: l am only saying that there is a reason for referring this Bill to a Joint Select Committee rather than trying to pass it in all the stages in this House itself. We are not asking for a great deal of time for this purpose. We are only suggesting that the Joint Select Committee may make its report to the House by the 29th of August this year.

I am a little afraid here because I am not sure if this message will go to the Lok Sabha in time. We shall try our best to send it on to the Lok Sabha tomorrow itself and get it passed tomorrow itself; then the Joint Committee can start its work. If it is not passed in this session, I am afraid the Joint Committee will not be constituted till the Lok Sabha meets again for its next session. Anyway, I think we shall try our best to see that the Lok Sabha takes up this question tomorrow itself.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. THENGARI): We shall send the message now itself.

PROF. V.K.R.V. RAO: I therefore commend this motion to the acceptance of the hon. Members of this House.

The question was proposed.


SHRI LOKANATH MISRA: Sir, in response to the request made from the treasury benches and since we are short of time, I request all Members not to discuss the matter now. After the Bill comes back from the Joint Committee, there would be discussion in the House. So it can be straightway sent to the Joint Committee.

SHRI PITAMBER DAS: I accept the suggestion.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI D. THENGARI): Is the suggestion acceptable to the House?



"That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith be referred to a Joint Committee of the Houses consisting of 45 members; 15 members from this House, namely:

1. Shri M. Ruthnaswamy.

2. Shri Prem Manohar.

3. Shri Rewati Kant Sinha.

4. Sardar Narindar Singh Brar.

5. Shri U. N. Mahida.

6. Shri M. M. Dharia.

7. Shrimati Vidyawati Chatur- vedi.

8. Shri Anand Chand

9. Shri M. H. Samuel.

10. Shri Baharul Islam.

11. Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy.

12. Shri Syed Hussain

13. Shri S. K. Singh

14. Shri A. C. Gilbert.

15. Shri C. L. Varma,

and 30 members from the Lok Sabha;

  • that in order to constitute a meeting of the Joint Committee, the quorum shall be one- third of the total number of members of the Joint Committee;
  • that in other respects, the Rules of Procedure of this House relating to Select Committees shall apply with such variations and modifications as the Chairman may make ;
  • that the Committee shall make a report to this House by the 29th day of August, 1969;
  • that this House recommends to the Lok Sabha that the Lok Sabha do join in the said Joint Committee and communicate to this House the names of members to be appointed by the Lok Sabha to the Joint Committee."

The motion was adopted.

Message from the Lok Sabha


"That this House do concur in the recommendation of Rajya Sabha that the House do join in the Joint Committee of the Houses on the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith, made in the motion adopted by Rajya Sabha at its sitting held on the 15th May, 1969 and communicated to this House on the 15th May, 1969 and do resolve that the following thirty members of Lok Sabha be nominated to serve on the said Joint Committee, namely: —

1. Shri Ramachandra J. Amin.

2. Shri J. B. S. Bist.

3. Shri Anil K. Chanda.

4. Shri Tulsidas Dasappa.

5. Shri Kansari Haider.

6. Shri J. N. Hazarika.

7. Shri Hem Barua.

8. Shri S. M. Joshi.

9. Shri Dhrieswar Kalita.

10. Kumari Kamla Kumari.

11. Shri Sitaram Kesri.

12. Shri Bal Raj Madhok.

13. Shri Bijoy Modak.

14. Shri Piloo Mody.

15. Shrimati Shakuntala Nayar.

16. Shri Chintamani Panigrahi.

17. Shri Anantrao Pa til.

18. Shri V. Narasimha Rao.

19. Shri P. Antony Reddi.

20. Shri V. Sambasivam.

21. Shrimati Tara Sapre.

22. Shri Erasmo de Sequeira.

23. Shrimati Jayaben Shah.

24. Shri Naval Kishore Shar- ma.

25. Shri Prakash Vir Shastri.

26. Shri P. Sivasankaran. \

27. Shri S. D. Somasundaram.

28. Shri M. G. Uikey.

29. Shri G. Venkatswamy.

30. Dr. V. K. R. V. Rao.


SHRI M. H. SAMUEL (Andhra Pradesh):5 Madam, I move:

"That the time appointed for the presentation of the Report of the Joint Committee of the Houses on the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith, be extended up to the last day of the Seventieth (November-December, 1969) Session of the Rajya Sabha."

The question was put and the motion was passed.


SHRI U. N. MAHIDA (Gujarat):6Sir, I beg to lay on the Table the evidence tendered before the Joint Committee of the Houses on the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith.

The Architects Bill, 1968

Architects [7 MAY 1970] Bill, WO7


"That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith, as reported by the joint Committee of the Houses, be taken into consideration."

Sir, as the House is aware, this Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 10th December, 1968. The motion for reference of the Bill to the Joint Committee of the Houses was moved by my senior colleague, Prof. V.K. R. V. Rao, on 15th May, 1969 and it was adopted by this House the same day. The matter was discussed in the Lok Sabha on the 16th May, 1969 and it concurred in the motion the same day.

The Joint Committee held nine sittings in all, and, after having considered all memoranda, representations, and references etc., and having heard a number of witnesses, it submitted its report on the 28th November, 1969; and it is now before this House.

Let me take this first possible opportunity to thank the Chairman and other members of the Joint Committee for their fine Report, which is almost unanimous, as only one member of the Lok Sabha has thought it worthwhile to append a minute of dissent.

I wish to take this opportunity to refer to some of the more important provisions of the Bill, as amended by the Joint Committee.

The original Bill had visualised the definition of an architect as a person qualified to design and supervise the erection of any building. This definition implied that no person other than the one, who was styled as an architect and registered under the Act, could engage himself in any activity concerned with the construction and supervision of any building. This attracted the protest of a large number of other professionals particularly engineers, who felt that the designing, supervision and construction of buildings was not the exclusive responsibility of architect only. As the House is aware, the engineering profession is vast and important. A large number of our engineers are engaged in various aspects of designing and construction of buildings. Any attempt to deprive them of their legitimate professional responsibilities would be unfair to them. It is on this issue that the Joint Committee deliberated at length and also heard the evidence of the representatives of the Institution of Engineers, representatives of the Institute of Architects and other professional bodies. After taking all factors into consideration, the Committee agreed that the definition of the term "architect" should be amended, so that the title can be used by all persons irrespective of the qualifications, whose names are borne on the register of architects to be maintained by the Architects Registration Council.

The original Bill had visualised that an Architects Registration Council should be set up as a body corporate to maintain a register of architects for India. The Bill had also visualised that the Council should consist of 35 members, including an architect to the Government of India, each State or an architect in the service of that Government and a person nominated by the Institution of Engineers. The Joint Committee felt that the Council constituted in this manner gave heavy weightage to those persons holding office under the Government, leaving inadequate scope for the representation of non-official professional bodies and particularly architects in the profession.. The Committee has, therefore, amended the constitution of the Registration Council. Now the Governments of States need not necessarily be represented on the Council by an architect of the Government concerned or by an architect serving under that Government. Instead, the Government of a State will have discretion to nominate any architect from that State. Further, the Committee has also suggested that the representation of the Institution of Engineers on the Council should be increased to two persons. In addition, the Institution of Surveyors of India, which is another important professional body, should also be represented on the Council. Thus the amendments proposed by the Joint Committee for the composition of the Council give adequate representation to all the interests concerned, on the one hand, and, on the other, maintain a balance between the practising professional architects and architects in the employ of the Central and State Governments.

According to the original Bill, wherever any dispute arose regarding any election to the Council, the matter was to be referred to the Central Government and the Central Government's decision thereon was to be final. It was felt that the Central Government should not be involved in any dispute concerning elections to the Council and all such disputes should be referred to a tribunal appointed by the Central Government. Accordingly, the necessary amendment has been made to the concerned clause of the Bill.

The original Bill had provided that a person should not be eligible for election or nomination as a member of the Council, if he had been convicted by a competent court for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years. There was considerable discussion on this provision in the Joint Committee particularly the interpretation of the term "moral turpitude". It was ultimately felt that this clause should be brought in line with the same provisions as for election to the Houses of Parliament. The amendment accepted by the Committee is that a person shall not be eligible for election or nomination as a member of the Council, if he has been convicted by a court for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years and shall continue to be ineligible for a further period of 5 years since his release.

The standards of architectural education and training are important, both in the interest of the profession and in the interest of the general public. Wherever the standard of a recognised architectural qualification falls below the minimum it is necessary to examine the matter in detail and consider whether a person holding that qualification should be entitled to be registered. For the purpose of assessing on a continuing basis the standards of architectural qualifications and for taking necessary action on the assessment made, the original Bill visualised a detailed procedure. The Committee felt that the proposed procedure for withdrawal of a recognition was time-consuming and cumbersome and, therefore a simpler procedure should be evolved. Accordingly, a simplified procedure has been suggested by the Committee.

An important aspect of the Bill is the registration of persons, who do not hold recognised architectural qualifications, but have been engaged in practice as architects. For this purpose, the original Bill had prescribed two conditions to be fulfilled. The first was that the individual concerned should have been practising architecture as his principal means of livelihood and the other, that he should be a member of the Indian Institute of Architects. It was felt by the Joint Committee that these conditions are rather rigid, particularly since it is difficult to interpret the term "principal means of livelihood." It was, therefore, considered necessary to liberalise the provision by deleting the conditions of "principal means of livelihood" and "membership of the Indian Institute of Architects." The liberalised provision, it is hoped, will go a long way in meeting the representation of a large number of persons, who feared that they will be deprived of their means of livelihood, in which they have been engaged for a long time.

After coming into force of this Act, a person, who is not entitled to use the title and style of architect, cannot call himself an architect. If, therefore, a plan or a certificate in respect of any building is required by or under any law from an architect, it must be signed by a person, whose name is borne on the register to be maintained under this Act. Under the circumstances, there is no need to provide separately as in the original Bill, for "no plan or certificate in respect of any building required by or under any law from an architect shall be valid unless the person signing it is registered as an architect under this Act." The provision was considered redundant and, therefore, the Committee has rightly suggested that it be deleted from the Bill.

The original Bill visualised that if any person not being a registered architect takes or uses any title or description of an architect or uses any names, style or title containing the word "architect", he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500. The Committee rightly held the view that if this clause is allowed to stand, every architect irrespective of the fact whether he is or is not eligible for registration, might at the commencement of the Act and before the register is completed be liable to punishment. The Committee had, therefore, recommended the deletion of this clause.

The original Bill contemplated both protection of the profession of architecture and the title of architect. The Bill, as now amended by the Committee, however, provides for the protection of the use of the title and style of "architect" only. Therefore, the provision in the original Bill precluding any person other than a registered architect from practising the profession of architecture needs to be amended and brought in line with the protection of the title only. The amendment proposed by the Committee, therefore, is that after the expiry of one year from the date appointed for the purpose, no person other than an architect or a firm of architects shall use the title and style of architect. Here, the term "architect" means a person, who is registered under the Act.

The Schedules to the Bill have also been revised to make them more comprehensive. The revised schedules now include all the architectural qualifications, which have been recognised by the UPSC and the Central Government for purposes of recruitment to the posts of architects.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to point out that the question of registration of architects has been before the Central Government for nearly twenty-five years. During this period, several drafts of the Bill were prepared and the State Governments, the All India Council for Technical Education and other authorities were consulted. The desire of the Government was to bring forward a Bill, which would satisfy the legitimate demands of architects, on the one hand, and, on the other, give adequate safeguards to engineers and others in the pursuit of their own vocations in life. It is only after all these consultations, discussions and so on that the Bill was introduced in the House on 10th December, 1968. Many important issues were still raised about the scope of the Bill and how it affected the wide spectrum of constructional work in our country, in which many different types of professionals and, particularly engineers, are engaged. The Joint Committee has gone into all these matters with great care and deliberation and has made several amendments to reconcile and harmonise different factors affecting various interests, for which our sincere thanks are due to its Chairman and members.

I, therefore, commend this Bill as amended by the Joint Committee, for the consideration and unanimous adoption by this august House.

The question was proposed.

The Architects Bill, 1968— cont'd

contd.Session Number: 728

श्रीजगदम्बीप्रसादयादव(बिहार) : उपसभाध्यक्ष जी, कई दिनों के बाद आखिर स्थापत्य कला विधेयक सदन में पारित होने के लिए आया ।

मैंने संयुक्त प्रवर समिति के निवेदन को देख और जो हैडिंग था उसे भी देखने का प्रयास किया । एक शब्द का विवेचन मैं यहाँ पर करना आवश्यक समझता हूँ कि आज जब आर्किटेक्ट्स की बात आती है तो ऐसा लगता है जैसे अपने देश में भारतीयकरण की बात चलाई गई है, उसी तरह से इस आर्किटेक्चर की शिक्षा में और व्यवसाय में भी भारतीयकरण की आवश्यकता है । आज हमारे जो आर्किटेक्ट् हैं, भवन-निर्माण कर्ता जो हैं बड़े-बड़े दिग्गज हैं आज उनके ऊपर विदेशिपन का प्रभाव दिखाई पड़ता है ।

जहाँ तक गुण-ग्राहकता की बात है वह प्रशंसनीय है, लेकिन गुण-ग्राहकता के बहाने हम अपने देश की स्थापत्य कला को जो आज के जगत में मानी हुई है, भुला दें, ठीक नहीं । आप मीनाक्षी के मंदिर को लें या कोणार्क के मन्दिर को ले लें, सैकड़ों-हजारों वर्षों की स्थापत्य कला के नमूने उनमें मौजूद हैं , भारतवर्ष के जो कि विनिर्माता बनने में सहायक हुए हैं, आज उस ओर इस शिक्षा का झुकाव नहीं है । इसलिए उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय, मैंने कहा कि मंत्री महोदय जहाँ पर रजिस्ट्रेशन निबन्धन की बात लाये हैं, जहाँ पर इसका जो बेस है, आधार है शिक्षा का व्यवसाय का, जहां तक पाश्चात्य जगत ने प्रगति की है, उस पाश्चात्य जगत के गुणों को सीखना आवश्यक है; वहाँ पर हमने भी जो प्रगति की थी या हमारी प्रगति के जो नमूने आज भी मौजूद हैं, उस वैभवशाली कला को हम भूल न जाएं । इसलिए कला का झुकाव उस ओर होना नितान्त आवश्यक है । इसलिए मैंने कहा कि स्थापत्य कला की शिक्षा को प्रोत्साहन देना नितान्त आवश्यक है ।

आप, जहाँ पर इस हैडिंग को देखें वहां पर यह बात आई है कि हमारा भवन-निर्माण का कार्य 90 प्रतिशत सिविल इंजीनियर करते हैं और 10 प्रतिशत आर्किटेक्चर के जो ज्ञाता हैं, वह करते हैं । लेकिन मैं कहता हूँ कि यहाँ पर संयुक्त प्रवर समिति ने एक बात भुला दी, थोड़ा-थोड़ा उसका जिक्र आया है, कि भारतवर्ष में छोटे और बड़े जो भवनों का निर्माण होता है उसका 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक वैसे लोग निर्माण करते हैं जिनके पास न तो सिविल इंजीनियर की डिग्री है, न ही आर्किटेक्चर की डिग्री है । आप गांवों से लें – दो तीन बड़े शहरों को, कलकत्ता, बम्बई, दिल्ली, मद्रास, छोड़ दें जहां पर कुछ आर्किटेक्चर के लोग रहते हैं । और बड़ी-बड़ी इमारतों का निर्माण करते हों । उनके सिवाय सिविल इंजीनियर भी, यदि सरकारी भवनों को छोड़ दें, तो शायद ही भवन निर्मान करते हों । भारतवर्ष के नगरों में गांवों में जहां भी भवन, या अट्टालिकाएं बनती हैं, अधिकांश ऐसे लोग उन मकानों को बनाते हैं जिनके पास किसी प्रकार की कोई भी डिग्री नही है । इसलिए उनके व्यवसायों पर जो विवेचन होना चाहिए, संयुक्त प्रवर समिति में या इस विधेयक में, वह नहीं है ।

एक सवाल के संदर्भ में अपने माननीय मंत्री महोदय का ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहूंगा कि इन्होने कहा कि बिना डिग्री होल्डरों को निबन्धन की बात आई है । पहले जो मूल विधेयक था, उस विधेयक में कुछ सख्त प्रतिबन्ध थे, इसमें कुछ सहूलियते दी गई हैं । मैं इन्हें स्मरण दिलाना चाहूंगा कि ब्रिटेन में जब यह विधेयक आया था उस समय यह जिक्र था कि जो डिग्री होल्डर नहीं हैं उनको रजिस्ट्रेशन के लिए मान्यता की शर्त यह हो कि जिस समय वह विधेयक पारित हो उस समय तक अगर वह भवन निर्माण का कार्य करता है तो उसको इसकी सहूलियत दी जाए । लेकिन आपने इसमें पाँच वर्ष रखा है इसीलिए मैं उस ओर आपका ध्यान दिलाना चाहता था । एक बहुत बड़ा वर्ग आज भारतवर्ष में भवन निर्माण करता है और इसमें 90 प्रतिशत मकान बिना सिविल इंजीनियर डिग्री के लोग बनाते हैं । मुझे आश्चर्य होता है कि सिविल इंजीनियर 90 प्रतिशत भारत में मकान नहीं बनाता है, मगर 90 प्रतिशत मकान बिना सिविल इंजीनियरिंग डिग्री होल्डर बनाते हैं । इसलिए इसमें विवेचन उन लोगों का होना चाहिए था । संयुक्त प्रवर समिति के सामने ऐसे लोगों का प्रतिनिधित्व नहीं था जिसके कारण इन बातों पर जिनका विवेचन होना चाहिए था, उनका विवेचन नहीं हुआ । यह विधेयक तो उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय, उन लोगों का है जो कि आर्किटेक्ट्स हैं । उन्होंने यह व्यवस्था की कि जिस प्रकार से लाइसेंस होल्डर डाक्टर हैं उन्ही को प्रेक्टिस करने का अधिकार है, उसी तरह आर्किटेक्ट वालों को भवन निर्माण करने का अधिकार दिया गया है । इस प्रकार की मोनोपली राइट इसमें है । संयुक्त प्रवर समिति के सामने कुछ विद्वान या सिविल इंजीनियरों का प्रतिनिधित्व था जिन्होंने इस बात को उठाया और जो सही बात है कि ऐसे डिग्री होल्डर जो भवन निर्माण करने वाले हैं उनमें से 90 प्रतिशत सिविल इंजीनियर हैं और उनका अहित करने के लिए यह मोनोपली अधिका आर्किटेक्ट लोग चाहते हैं । उन्होंने लड़ करके इस बात को खुलासा किया कि यह सही नहीं है कि हम उन सिविल इंजीनियरों को डिबार करें । इसका मौजूदा उदाहरण चंडीगढ़ का शहर है । चंडीगढ़ का निर्माण करने वाला भी इंजीनियर था । वह पहले आर्किटेक्ट नहीं था । उसने ऐसे शहर का निर्माण किया है जिसकी सभी लोग प्रशंसा करते हैं । तो इस आधार पर सिविल इंजीनियरों की समस्या हल हुई ।

उसी तरह से हम चाहते हैं कि ऐसे लोगों का भी जिन्होंने सचमुच में भारतवर्ष के भवन का निर्माण किया है,जिसके ऊपर भारतवर्ष का भवन बना है ऐसे लोगों को भी सुविधा दी जाए । अगर अमेंडमेंट में इसकी गुंजाइश न हो तो दूसरे तरीके से भी गुंजाइश होना जरूरी है ।

एक बात की ओर मैं और सदन का ध्यान दिलाना चाहता हूँ । अभी इससे ऐसा लगता है कि सिविल इंजीनियर या बिना डिग्री होल्डर को डिबार नहीँ है, लेकिन वह दिन दूर नहीं जब इसका इंटरप्रिटेशन इस ढंग से आएगा । वह कैसे आएगा कि अगर किसी मकान का रेवेन्यू आँकने कि लिए उसका सर्टिफिकेट माँगा जाएगा, तो हो सकता है वह अधिकार कह दे कि आर्किटेक्चर का सर्टिफिकेट ले आओ । तो वहाँ पर उस मकान मालिक को कठिनाई हो जाएगी और खर्चा करके आर्किटेक्ट के पास जाना पड़ेगा कि तुम जरा सर्टिफिकेट दे दो । और इसीलिए हम कहना चाहते हैं कि सिविल इंजीनियर से भी सर्टिफिकेट लेने में कठिनाई होगी क्योंकि अधिकांश मकान, 90 प्रतिशत, मकान, ऐसे लोगों द्वारा बनाये गये हैं जिनके पास न तो सिविल इंजीनियर और न आर्किटेक्ट की डिग्री है । इसलिये हम कहना चाहते हैं कि मकान वालों को जो कठिनाई होगी उसका ख्याल कर के उस हिसाब से सुविधा देनी चाहिये । इस विधेयक के अनुसार अगर कोई रजिस्ट्रेशन की बात आती है तो रजिस्ट्रेशन की इसलिये आनी चाहिये कि जनता को सुविधा नहीं हो और इसमें यह देखा गया है कि सुविधा इंडिविजुअल आर्किटेक्ट को हो और उनको सुविधा नहीं हो जो मकान वाले हैं । मकान वालों की, मकान बनाने वालों की सहुलियत के हिसाब से ही कोई विधेयक आना चाहिये । इसलिये हम, श्रीमान् , कहना चाहते थे कि जब हम आर्किटेक्ट्स को मोनोपोली देने जा रहे हैं तो हम गम्भीरतापूर्वक विचार करें कि सचमुच में जो मकान बनाने वाले हैं उनको इसके कारण बाधाएं तो नहीं होंगी । अगर इसको स्टिरिक्ली फालो किया जाय कि आर्किटेक्ट ही मकान बनवाये तो मैं मंत्री महोदय पूछना चाहता हूँ कि इस भारतवर्ष में कितने आर्किटेक्ट्स हैं और कहाँ कहाँ वह प्राप्य हैं, मैंने जिन चार शहरों का रेफरेंस किया है उन शहरों के बाहर भी क्या आर्किटेक्ट मिल सकते हैं ? इसी संदर्भ में मैं यह भी जानना चाहूँगा कि इतने दिनों जो यह लटकाये रहे वह क्या शायद इसलिये कि यहाँ आर्किटेक्ट नहीं है ? फिर भी सचमुच में यह प्रश्न है कि क्या भारतवर्ष में इतने आर्किटेक्ट्स हैं कि जिनके लिये यह आवश्यकता आ पड़ी कि इस विधेयक को अतयन्त आवश्यक विधेयक कह कर यहाँ लाया जाय, वैसे यह निर्दोष विधेयक है और मैं इसका समर्थन करने लगा हूँ किन्तु जो प्रश्न उठते हैं उन प्रश्नों की ओर भी मैं सदन के द्वारा मंत्री महोदय का ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहूगा कि कहीं ऐसा कुछ न हो जाय जिससे कि भवन निर्माण करने वालों को आगे चल कर कठिनाई हो ।

इसी संदर्भ में कौंसिल की बात का भी उन्होने जिक्र किया । आज यह मानी हुई बात है कि हर चीज की जो कौंसिल होती है उसमें यह देखा जाता है कि जो उसका रेप्रेजेंटेशन का पैटर्न हो वह डेमोक्रेटिक पैटर्न हो लेकिन आप देखेगें कि इसमें डेमोक्रेटिक पैटर्न की जगह पर इस कौंसिल का पैटर्न सरकारीकरण हैं और सरकारीकरण के कारण ही इसमें कहा गया है कि जो इलेक्शन के मामले होंगे उनका निर्णय सरकार करेगी और किसी डिस्प्यूट के होने पर सरकार ट्राइब्यूनल एप्वांइट करेगी । और उस केस को ट्राइब्यूनल को दे देगी कि ट्राइब्यूनल इसका निर्णय करए । मैं यह पूछना चाहता हूँ कि इलेक्शन का निर्णय करने का तो ट्राइब्यूनल को सरकार देगी तो फिर इसमें डेमोक्रेटिक पैटर्न कहाँ रहेगा । जैसे कि कोआपरेटिव फील्ड है या और दूसरी जगह है कि उसका पैटर्न डेमोक्रेटिक है उसी तरह से फिर इस कौंसिल को डेमोक्रेटिक बनाने में आपको क्या असुविधा है, आप क्यों नहीं इसको डेमोक्रेटिक पैटर्न पर बनाने को तैयार हैं । आपने जो कुछ आर्किटेक्ट हैं उनको और कुछ और लोगों का प्रतिनिधित्व दिया है लेकिन वास्तव में जो नामिनेशंस हैं वे नामिनेशंस सरकार के हाथ में ही हैं । इसलिये मैं चाहूंगा कि मंत्री महोदय इस बात का विवेचन कर के देखे कि सचमुच में इसमें डेमोक्रेटिक पैटर्न होता है या नहीं होता है और क्या अब भी ऐसा मौका है कि उसमें कुछ सुधार किया जा सकता है ।

एक बात और है । इसके अन्त में जो फाइनेंशल मेमोरेंडम है उसमें इन्होंने कहा है कि 1 लाख 20 हजार रुपया इसमें खर्च होगा और यह जो रजिस्ट्रेशन होगा उससे आ जायेगा और इन्होंने रजिस्ट्रेशन का जो आँकड़ा लगाया है उसमें यह है अगर पाँच हजार लोग रजिस्ट्रेशन करायें तो करीब 1 लाख रुपया हो जायेगा और केवल 20 हजार रुपये की व्यवस्था करनी पड़ेगी लेकिन मुझे जो पता लगा है वह यह है यहाँ पर तीन या चार हजार से कम ही आर्किटेक्ट लोग हैं जिनका कि रजिस्ट्रेशन होगा और उनमें से भी कितने ऐसे होंगे जो कि इसके लिये नहीं आयेंगे, मान ले कि तीन हजार आते हैं तो 3000 गुणा 20 यानि 60 हजार रुपये से ज्यादा नहीं होता है और इस प्रकार 40 और 20 यानी 60 हजार रुपये का घाटा रह जाता है । तो जितने रुपये की व्यवस्था करना चाहते हैं वह पर्याप्त नहीं है । जो आपने टोटल एक्पेन्डीचर बताया है वह 1 लाख 20 हजार है लेकिन शायद इतने रुपये से ही काम न चले और इसके लिय और अधिक रुपये की आवश्यकता पड़े । इसलिये मैं सरकार से निवेदन करना चाहूँगा कि अगर सचमुच में इस विधेयक को बना कर के कागज पर ही नहीं रखना है बल्कि इसका कुछ सदुपयोग करना है तो ऐसी व्यवस्था करनी पड़ेगी कि सचमुच में यह सरकार इसको चला सके । जैसे कि और दूसरे एसोसियेशंस के बारे में होता है कि शुरु शुरु में सरकार उसके सारे खर्चे की जिम्मेदारी अपने ऊपर ले लेती है उसी तरह अगर सचमुच में इसको आप चलाना चाहते हैं तो शुरुशुरु में चाहे वह तीन वर्ष हो या पाँच वर्ष हों इतने वर्षों तक जितना भी इस पर खर्चा हो उसकी व्यवस्था सरकार करे और सारे के सारे खर्चे को मीट करने का सरकार प्रयास करे तो हो सकता है शायद इसका कोई कुछ समाधान निकले ।

इन शब्दों के साथ मैं बिल का समर्थन करते हुये सरका से निवेदन करना चाहता हूँ कि अभी हमने जो क्लैरिफिकेशंस मांगे हैं उनको सरकार क्लैरिफाई करे ।

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL (Andhra Pradesh): Sir, both the engineers and the architects have long been waiting for this day when this House and Parliament are going to pass this Bill. The first engineer in this country came out of the college 150 years ago, and the first architect in India came out about 30 years ago. Till 1947, there were only 300 qualified architects in the country. Today, as Mr. Yadav has rightly said, there are about three thousand, perhaps more than that. Engineers are now about one hundred thousand, engineers of all kinds, of whom 50 per cent are civil engineers. Engineers were also practising as architects without the architectural qualification. When the architects believed that their trade must be regulated and that no outsider should come in and step into their shoes and take away their trade, there grew a demand that it was perhaps necessary for the architects as well as for the engineers practising as architects that some legislation should be brought forward for this purpose. That was insistent demand of the architects at that time; but the engineers were not so much in the picture.

A legislation was conceived in our country for architects 25 years ago, and this legislation is going now before Parliament after 25 years. I do not remember any legislation first conceived and then bearing fruit after a period of 25 years. And therefore, as I said in the beginning, engineers practising as architects and architects qualified in architecture, have been looking forward to this day.

The first Architects Bill was drafted somewhere in 1947. It was circulated to the States. Their opinions were solicited. Later, the whole thing went moribund. For 15 years nobody ever said anything about it, nobody thought anything about it. Then the architects revived their demand. In 1960 discussions again began with all the persons concerned within profession, and eight years later, the Bill was introduced in this House, in 1968. It was referred to a Joint Select Committee in 1969 and the Bill is now before the House.

You will agree with me, Sir, that since creation man has been a builder, an engineer in one sense of the term. Since creation, man has been endowed with a sense of beauty, harmony and synthesis. An architect is one who introduces into a building these elements of beauty, synthesis and harmony, consistent, of course, with the environment in each case. Both engineers and architects are complementary to each other. Neither can do without the other. But they must work together—this is important—both as equals, neither being subordinate to the other. A reconciliation of the roles of the two, the engineers and the architects, with a happy consensus, was the task before the Joint Select Committee. It was not an easy task.

If I may say so, engineering and architecture are so imbedded in each other, almost with one body but with two souls, that they can be called almost Siamese twins. A surgical operation to separate the two would have been neither possible nor desirable. Each has to be given its own identity, and yet each must breathe in unison. That was the task of the Joint Select Committee.

Naturally, in the vortex of these conflicting interests between the engineers and architects, the moment we started our work—I was a member of the Joint Select Committee—we came up against, so to say, a big boulder, the boulder of definition of an architect. The first clause was the title and the second clause was the definition. The original Bill had a definition of an architect and we discussed it at great length. It said: "Architect means a person qualified to design and supervise the erection of any building." Now, we immediately realised that this impinged very effectively upon the functions of an engineer. Building is an engineer's job. We discussed other definitions that were suggested, but as my time is limited . . .

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI AKBAR ALI KHAN): You can go on for another five or seven minutes.

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: Each time we discussed one definition, we came up against a dead wall. Then, ultimately, the whole Committee came to the conclusion that it is better not to 'define an architect but merely confine an architect registered under this Act. This was one of the fundamental changes that the Joint Select Committee thought it wise to make. I personally have no regrets for making it and I am happy to say that the President of the Institute of Engineers and "the President of the Institute of Architects both came forward with the same suggestion—"All right, Sir, leave out the definition; let us be just registered architects." As a matter of fact, the President of the Institute of Architects, Mr. Bhalla, who appeared before the Committee, was very co-operative. He wrote a letter to the Committee suggesting that this definition need not be there at all; and he is a man who has. been demanding for the Architects Bill. He wanted somehow that the Bill should be passed as quickly as possible. As a result of this, certain consequential changes had to be made. Now, anybody can design and erect a building without calling himself an architect. It is a big change. This has met the viewpoints of both the engineers as well as the architects. Therefore, we confirmed their view that we were only protecting the title of architects and not the profession of architects. You will find these consequent changes in clauses 33, 35 (2) and 36 of the Bill that has been reported upon by the Joint Select Committee.

Now, having talked about the definition, for lack of time, I would like to content myself with dealing with certain broad aspects of the Bill before us and the major changes that have been made in it. First, I would like to say a few words about registration of architects. This is crucial because, as I said, we have left out any definition of architects as Ihave contented ourselves by saying that an architect is one who is registered under the Act. This you will find in clause 23 of the new Bill. Here also we tried to remove some of the apprehensions of the engineers. For example, if you take clause 25(1), it was stated that an engineer who wants to be registered as an architect must have, as his principal means of livelihood, this business. That would have excluded a lot of engineers, which would have been a tremendous calf ni y because of the huge number of engineers who have been doing this architectural work for so many years. The minimum qualifications have also been widened, liberalised, as ' Mr. Bhakt Darshan has pointed out. The Committee has been able to revise Schedule 1 which pres- cribes the qualifications for registration as an architect, and put in a lot of things. These things are embodied in clauses 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the new Bill.

The second broad aspect I would like to deal with is the Registration Council and its composition. You will find this under clause 3. The original Bill had prescribed the strength of the Registration Council as 35, with one member from each of the 18 States — including Union Territories, and so on — and three members from the Central Government, Railways, C. P. W. D. and Defence. That would have meant 21 out of the 35 members being Government members. That the Committee felt it was a terrific overweightage for Government. We, therefore, re-6—29 R. S./70 moved, with the consent of the Government representatives, that overweightage for Government, and the major change that we did was that the 18 State representatives need not be State employees; they can be any well known architects practising in that particular State. In recognition of his services, the State Government can come forward and nominate any architect to the Registration Council. In this respect, I feel that many of the persons nominated by the State Governments will have been non-officials and not officials only.

The third aspect is in regard to the withdrawal of recognition. As Mr. Bhakt Darshan has said, a very cumbersome procedure was evolved in the original Bill, and we simplified it by saying, if there is any complaint about a particular qualification or teaching in any particular college in which not sufficient attention is being paid to any particular subject or curricula, the matter should be referred to the College, and if no reply is received, the matter should be referred to the State Government; if no reply is received, the Central Government may act on the direction of the Council. This will not take more time whereas the previous procedure will have taken more than one year or so. The new Bill, therefore, in my opinion, Sir, is a reconciliation of the viewpoints of both engineers and architects and a synthesis of the consensus expressed in the Committee. We had in our Committee two very highly qualified, respected Members of the two professions. Our own House contributed an engineer, Mr. Mahida, who fought his battles of the engineers admirably and bravely and ultimately won the day. Architects were represented by a Member from the other House, a practising Architect Mr.. Piloo Mody, himself very robust not only in body but in expression.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it is a well balanced representation from both the Houses.

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: May I say, Sir,that the Chairman had to be very tactful in dealing with Mr. Mahida and Mr. Piloo Mody? But it was all a happy ending. And the Members of the Committee met many witnesses, examined them, read a lot of memoranda submitted, and ultimately brought forward this Bill, and recommended this Bill. And in our opinion, it was found that it was a balanced measure in the interests of our engineers and architects. Thank you, Sir.

SHRI U. N. MAHIDA (Gujarat): I rise to support this Bill. As the history of the Bill would show, while the engineers participated in its formulation in the very early stages it is not true to say that they were continuing their participation till the end. The result was that when Dr. Triguna Sen introduced the Bill, there was considerable opposition. I must own it today, that I was principally responsible for the working up of a huge amount of opposition to this Bill. As we see from the result of the deliberations of the Select Committee, I did not want to overburden the members of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, to put in the maximum amount of labour for nothing.. The amendments now brought about here and the recasting of the Bill that has now resulted in this reconciliation, show the justice of my opposition and the engineers case. The initial opposition was well planned and it succeeded. The scope of the Bill as emerging now is restricted to purely Architect's registration. The engineers support this Bill whole-heartedly, as registration is the right of every profession. Architects are entitled to seek registration. What they get out of it is not for others to question, but registration is a symbol of status, the architects are entitled to that. Registration is also helpful in one matter— it weeds out the inefficient, incapable and the unqualified. That is the primary function of the registration. It incidentally, as a result of this registration, confers a status on those registered. And as you know, Sir, professional men value status more than profits. With this registration, there is also a great benefit to the community that it is assured of service by competent men. That is a gain to the society and that is the justification of registration. They will be safeguarded; they will be served by honest men. The registration can be cancelled by these bodies if members are found guilty of unprofessional conduct. The only thing that one has to be careful about in matters of registration is that it does not bring about undesirable monopoly in human activities. The original Bill, as has been very ably explained by the Minister and subsequently by Mr. Samuel, Chairman of the Select Committee, was tending to create a monopoly, however hard it was sought to be explained, that there was no such intention. The very phraseology of the clauses of the Bill, and two or three clauses read carefully together established this fact. As amended, the clauses would now remove the disabilities to the engineers. Precautions have now been taken in this registration so that no monopoly is being created. I am glad that the Bill has been so amended as to meet the needs of the architects and at the same time remove the disabilities of the engineers. There is another aspect of this question. While amending a certain section, it removes the two embargoes or rather the two restrictions, that anybody other than qualified Architects applying for registration must necessarily be a member of the Institution of Architects, and that he must necessarily have Architecture practised as his principal means of livelihood. These things have been removed. I wanted that the third restriction that he should have practised for 5 years should also have been removed. I was satisfied that most of the requirements that we wanted were conceded by the Committee, and I did not press for this point. But for the information of the House, I might say that the corresponding British Legislation which went into this very question did remove this disability inasmuch as the corresponding clauses of the British Act stated very clearly that if application for registration was made within two years from the commencement of the Act, it only required that at the commencement of this Act, he had been practising as an architect: 'At the commencement of the Bill'. That's all. Here, we are restricting people to a period of five years. That is the great disability, and I bring this matter once more to the notice of the Minister.

Again, I am glad that all the disabilities have been removed and the Government was keen to accept these amendments. The Committee wisely removed all those disabilities; otherwise, a very serious consequence would have followed. Legislations are to be enacted with a very wide intent. The original Bill, as drafted, would have seriously come in conflict with Article 19 of the Constitution. Art. 19(1) (g) prescribes the right of freedom "to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business". This Article 1 >U')(g) is further qualified by Section 19 6) that nothing in sub-Clause (g) will prevent the Government from making restrictions re. qualifications, and it adds that they can prescribe professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession. But before that is done, it make a very salient provision in Sub-section (() that this should be in the interest of the general public, not in the interest of a group of professional men and that the restrictions should be reasonable. The original Bill offended against these provisions and I am glad that though I had not to bring this point pointedly to the notice of the Select Committee. I was spared the unpleasantness of having to mention these defects. I am glad to say that the select committee accepted my amendments. It must be realised that it would have offended against the constitution, would have led to consequential litigation and embarrassment and the references to Supreme Court on writ petitions and all that follows. I have brought this to your notice that in future no such efforts be made to restrict professional activities unduly.

SHRI THILLAI VILLALAN (Tamil Nadu): Sir, this is a long awaited Bill. This Bill was expected to become law more than two decades before. This Bill was under consideration since the year 1946. The draft was prepared in 1964 and the previous Government approved this bill in 1968. While supporting this Bill I want to make my suggestions under three headings. The first is protection of Indian architecture. Indian architecture is a very ancient one. If you turn the pages of history of India and make a tour of India, you can find different kinds of Indian architecture. They are different in time and also in places. If you make, a study of Indian architecture, right from primitive architecture to the h it Chalukya or Hoyasala style, you can find the difference and also the very interesting, very attractive, very enthusiastic types of architecture. In history we find Altars and Sacrificial Halls; Cave architecture; Buddhist period Chaityas and Stupas; Buddhist Railings; Chin i Halls and Viharas; Stambhas; Earl' Brahminical Temples; Chaitya Temples; Nagara Temples of Orissa; Nagara Temples of Northern Districts; the Nagara Forms of Jain Temples; Jain Temples; Nepalese Temples; Dravida Temples; Cave Architecture of the South; Rathas; Pallava Cave Shrines; Early Dravida Temples; Dravida Temples of the Pallavas; Dravida Temples of the Cholas and Pan-dyas; Dravida Temples of the Vijaya-nagara Dynasty; Architecture of the Nayakas; Chalukyan Architecture; Vesara Temples; and lastly Chalukyan or Hoyasala Style.

My first submission here is that ancient Indian architecture should be preserved and maintained by the present architects. By the present Bill we are attempting to regularise the profession of architects by bringing all the architects who are taking part in the different kinds of architecture, i.e. designing; actually constructing, supervising and different parts of the work. We are attempting to bring all sorts of persons who are taking part in the different stages of a particular building or a construction, into one category called "architects".

My next submission is under the heading "protection of traditional architects". By giving a strict definition to the word or term "architect" we should not prevent the traditional architects who are not having any diplomas or degrees of the modem times, because Indian architecture is an age-long and ancient one. It has been carried on by traditional architects who have had no qualification or degree or diploma as they are called now. By their own aesthetic knowledge, by their own experience, they have played their role as architects from the ancient days, from the Aryan days, till the present times. I humbly request the honourable Minister to give protection in this Bill to the traditional architects who have had no diplomas or degrees of our modern education. I should say that they are more fit persons than the present degree or diploma-holders because by their own efforts and experience they became architects.

My next submission is that in the modern days, after we started implementing our Five Year Plans—from the First to the present Fourth—if any project is announced, whether we get coal or not, whether we get oil or not, the first point would be that there must be a colony of houses for the persons who are going to work on that project, who are going to be employed there. First we have to build a colony and then only do we attempt to work on the project. So the work of an architect is more essential than the work of an engineer on the project itself. So my submission is that the Bill must provide restrictions on architects in their selection because in most of the colonies in the present days the construction is defective. I have my own experience in the colony of Neyveli. There they have built a new town itself on even wet lands. The buildings are not in proper form. They have not been built in a proper way. There are very many cracks in the walls, even in the compound walls; we can see them. Therefore, my submission is that there should be restrictions on the selection of persons who are registered in the register mentioned in the Bill.

Sir, I have gone through the whole Bill. I have found provisions for the constitution of a Council and for the maintenance of a register. There is also a provision fixing the qualifications for getting registered in the register kept by the Council. So my suggestion is that there should be a provision for the restriction on selection of persons whose names can be registered in the register.

With these observations I welcome this Bill and I extend my wholehearted support to this Bill.

SHRI V. B. RAJU (Andhra Pradesh): The objective of the Bill is not very clear. I want to know whether it is to protect the profession or the person or the philosophy behind it and what is the immediate need for it. I venture to put a question whether anybody in his House can define 'architect'. I do not think the framers of the Bill have ever applied their mind to this because I happen to be associated with the profession indirectly as an engineer. I do not like to speak to a particular section of professionals. Architecture is not painting. It is not sculpture. One eminent person defined 'architecture' as the proportion between voids and solids in a structure. As we have now here, it is not actually the filigree work which is called architecture. It is not that column which is called architecture. It is just a balancing proportion between the voids and the solids. An eminent person put it and said "how it pleases the human mind." There is no rationale behind it.. So in this country there is no registration of painters, there is no registration of sculptors, there is no registration of politicians on whom the people's destiny depends.

Now the most important thing. I would like to register is engineering because I belong to that profession because the safety of the occupants of a structure is now in the capacity of the engineers. It is the engineer who gives the comfort, who provides the safety but what is the architect going to do and what does he do? As my friend put there is no uniformity in art. In science there is uniformity. Someone in Soviet Russia, if I remember the name, Lisenko, tried to distinguish between capitalist science and communist science in biology. Now it is not there. I do not know what the Communist friends here would say. Fortunately in this world science is common and universal. Physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are not influenced by regional, national ideological considerations. That is why we want a scientific approach to get nearer truth. When there is no Registration Council for engineers to protect the profession or those who belong to the profession and when the House does not take care of that particular activity which is very very essential, when even 25 years have been spent and other 25 years will not compel us to go in for registration, why is this necessary? If it is a question of giving monopoly to certain personnel, who by convenience, comfort and facilities could have that education prescribed or could have that education in those institutions prescribed in the schedule here, if they want to have a monopoly of certifying a particular design where such a certificate is necessary, then I can understand it. I do not think this House is interested in a small section of the people, while ignoring the difficulties that actually a huge section of the population is facing. So I wanted to know the aims and objects of this Bill. This Bill does provide for the registration of architects. Wherever in any Municipal Act it is said that a design must be certified by an architect, as defined in such Act, he will be considered as the competent architect and certify. Beyond that there is no purpose in this. I do not feel the need for it. If I had happened to be here earlier when the Bill was at the stageof First Reading, I would have said the same thing. If I am late, I must be excused. The Bill is vague and as I said, when so many professions in this country and when so many important professions in this country do want registrationand actual certification, why compel the architect? Who designed the temple at Tanjore? Who designed the Buildings which are called railway compartment buildings to-day with monolith: architecture with only glass, cement and steel and nothing to inspire?

SHRI M. H . SAMUEL: Mr. Raju has raised a yery important question as to why there should be registration for the architect when there is no registration for theengineers. I submit, the engineers were well protected from the beginning in view of their employment conditions and no person could be recognised unless he has been an engineer. Their profession was comparatively well protected also. There were no inroads There was nobody who made inroads into the engineering profession. Therefore, now after 150 years, it was considered that there was no need for the registration of engineers although they have an Institute of Engineers which protects the interests of the engineers. Just as a small child requires protection, the profession of architects is not a small child requiring protection. May be, after 150 years, they may not need it; but to-day, in view of other people trying to practise the same thing:, they thought that it was necessary.

SHRI V. B RAJU: The medical profession has registration because the life and death question is there. It is not for the sake of medical practitioners or architects or the engineers that we should have a statute. It is in the best interests of the people of the country and that must be the guiding principle because the life and death of the individual is in the hands of the medical profession and one may not misuse the name and present himself as a doctor before a patient and to protect that we have done. It can make a distinction. Such a profession—medical profession—now has to undergo registration. It is necessary but I would like to put it in a lighter vein that whatever crimes are committed by a medical man, they are buried and they are below the ground, they are never seen but whatever crimes are committed by an engineer are always seen—the cracks in the building and actually the weakness in the structure is visible for centuries but still the engineers did not like that the profession should be registered.

SHRI BRAMANANDA PANDA (Orissa): That is what Bernard Shaw said: "To be famous, a doctor has to kill a hundred eminent patients."

SHRI V. B. RAJU: Yes but actually there is no definition of 'architect'. Who is an architect—one who is registered as an architect in the register. How is the register maintained? It is those who have come from such institutions and by virtue of their being trained but is there any uniformity or scientific criterion laid down for an architect excepting the institutions which have grown now? I know something of this. Therefore this is not a Bill that should really go into the Statute Book. The engineers have cooperated because they have been accommodated somewhere, that is what I have understood, in the Council or somewhere. It shall not be the guiding principle. We must see how far the statute is going to help the people of India or in the advancement of this profession. I could have understood putting some limitation on the misuse of the profession but no such thing is found here. Anyhow I do not want to take the liberty of requesting permission to oppose the Bill; it is not my intention. I think the Minister when he replies to the debates, may keep these in view and keep scope for possible amendments which may come in the future.

SHRI BHAKT DARSHAN: Sir, I am thankful to all the Members, who have participated in this discussion and, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, this is a very non-controversial measure and it has been borne out by the fact that practically all Members have supported it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Raju opposed it.

SHRT BHAKT DARSHAN: He only wanted clarifications and I am thankful to Mr. Samuel, who was the Chairman of the Joint Committee, for throwing sufficient light on all the recommendations of the Joint Committee and so I need not take more time of the House. Mr.Raju who is an eminent parliamentarian, this I knew, but to-day I came to know for the first time that he has been an engineer also. He has raised the basic point and has asked as to what is the justification for the Bill at all. Mr. Samuel has tried to reply to his query, but I would like to read out from the Statement of Objects and Reasons which will be found in the Bill, which Dr. Triguna Sen had introduced in this House. It runs like this:

"There is a tremendous amount of building activity in consequence of the industrial development and the implementation of the various Plans. With this increase in building activity, unqualified persons are designating themselves as architects and the architectural profession is thereby seriously endangered. The various authorities, including the Indian Institute of Architects, have expressed the view that a statutory regulation is necessary to protect the public from such unqualified persons. With the passing of this legislation it would be unlawful for any person to designate himself as architect unless he has the requisite qualifications and experience. The legislation is on the lines of similar legislation obtaining in other countries."

SHRI V. B. RAJU: I have gone through it. That is exactly what I have objected to. Also the hon. Member who was a Member of the Joint Committee has said that. A new statement of objects and Reasons was not available. I was only depending upon the Statement of Objects and Reasons found on the Bill when it was introduced. By not registering the architect is the community going to suffer; that is my point, and that objection has not been met. A building collapses because of a mistake committed by the engineer but nothing goes wrong if the architect does not design it properly.

SHRI BHAKAT DARSHAN: Mr. Raju has tried to make out a point that because several other professions and avocations are not registered or regulated why there should be the regulation of architects; but I suggest that he should not take this argument too far. If some professions have not been registered or regulated, it does not follow that architects should not be regulated or properly registered. I need not enter into any argument with him.

Sir, two or three other points have been raised and one of them is that adequate emphasis should be laid on our Indian architecture. I may assure the House that all our institutions, which are imparting education and training in architecture, are teaching these things. As far as the preservation of the old buildings is concerned, there is a regular full-fledged department under this Ministry, the Archeological Survey of India. They have been carrying on the work for the last several years and they have got a big programme about the portection of our old monuments and the exquisite pieces of architecture. Therefore, there should not be any worry on that score.

Shi Yadav tried to make out the point that the Architects' Registration Council is going to be monopolised by architects. It is not a fact; civil engineers are not debarred. The job could be carried on as usual by other agencies also provided they do not assume the designation or architects. Therefore, I do not think there is any undemocratic process involved in it. The constitution of this Council is fairly democratic. And it is not an ordinary type of Council, where adult franchise has to be exercised. It is a professional body; it is a body of experts, and we have tried to choose representatives of professional bodies like the Institution of Engineers, the Institution of Surveyors, architects, etc. So I hope that Mr. Yadav will agree with me that his contention that this body is going to be undemocratic does not hold good.

Shri Yadav tried to make out the need for me to dilate on any point.. I am very grateful to the House that they have extended their support to this Bill.

श्रीजगदम्बेप्रसादयादव: फाइनेंशल ऐडजस्टमेंट करने जा रहे हैं ?

श्रीभक्तदर्शन : श्रिमन्, माननीय सदस्य ने फाइनेंशल ऐडजस्टमेंट के लिए कहा है । इसमें जो मेमोरेंडम दिया गया है, उसमें बताया गया है कि 1 लाख 20 हजार रुपयों का खर्चा होगा । उन्होंने कहा कि लगभग तीन हजार आर्किटेक्ट हैं तो उनसे कम रुपये मिलेंगें और लगभग साठ हजार रुपया का अनुमान बताया । लेकिन जो इंजीनियर इसके अंडर रजिस्टर्ड होंगे और जिनकी संख्या करीब एक लाख है, तो उनको भी रुपये देने पड़ेंगे । फिर भी अगर इसमें अधिक खर्च होगा तो शुरु में सरकार की ओर से खर्च होगा । बाद में यह सेल्फ-सपोर्टिंग हो जायेगी ।

Therefore appeal to the House to adopt this motion.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for purposes connected therewith, as reported by the Joint Committee of the Houses be taken into consideration."

The motion is adopted.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We shall now take up clause by clause consideration of the Bill.

Clause 2 was added to the Bill.

Clause 3 (Constitution of Council)

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR (Rajesthan): Sir, I move :

3."That at page 4, line 36 be deleted."

4."That at page 5, after line 16, the following provisions be inserted, namely:—

'Provided that the number of Government employees among the nominated members shall not exceed one-third of the total number of members;

Provided further that the term of office of the First Council consisting of nominated members shall, in no case, exceed a period of one year'."

The question were proposed.

श्रीजगदीशप्रसादमाथुर : क्लाज 3 में मेरे दो अमेंडमेंट हैं, मैं उनको प्रस्तावित करता हूं ।

उपसभापति महोदय, माननीय मंत्री महोदय ने कहा है कि विधेयक बड़ा निर्दोष है और इसमें किसी को आपत्ति नहीं, इसका गठन डेमोक्रेटिक होगा । धारा 3 में मैंने पंक्ति 38 को जिसे मैंने विलोपित करने के लिए संशोधन दिया है वह है ‘एक व्यक्ति को केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा नाम निर्देशित किया जाएगा’ । इसमें ऐसे कौन से व्यक्ति हैं जो सरकार द्वारा नाम निर्देशित नहीं किए जाएंगे । जो 35 सदस्य इसमें बनने वाले हैं उनमें से 22 सरकारी सदस्य होने वाले हैं और बाईस के बाईस ऐसे हैं जो कि सरकार द्वारा नाम निर्देशित होंगे । तो 22 को नामनिर्देशित करने के पश्चात भी सरका को ऐसी कौनसी आवश्यकता पड़ी कि वह स्पष्ट रूप से लिखे कि ‘एक व्यक्ति केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा नाम निर्देशित किया जाएगा’ । इस धारा को रखने के पीछे उपसभापति महोदय, मुझे लगता है कि सरकार कि नियत में कुछ फर्क है । वह कैसा व्यक्ति होगा जो बेरोजगार हो गया है जो चुनाव में जीत नहीं सका, सरकार के अन्दर नहीं आ सका, मंत्री पद नहीं पा सका । कोई भी कमीशन आप बनाएं, कोई भी कारपोरेशन बनाएं, सरका द्वारा इनके अंदर वही लोग रक्खे जाते हैं जो चुनाव हार जाते हैं या किसी प्रकार रह जाते हैं। इस प्रकार के व्यक्तियों को सरकार नाम-निर्देशित करती है । अगर सरकार कि नियत में गडबड नहीं होती तो वह ‘एक व्यक्ति’ क्वालीफिकेशन लिखती कि वह कौन सा इंजीनियर होगा । इस एक व्यक्ति की क्वालिफिकेशन न लिखने के पीछे मुझे स्पष्ट लगता है कि सरका की नियत में कुछ गड़बड़ है । वह किसी को बैक डोर से लाना चाहती है । आपने आगे लिखा है इसमें जो अध्यक्ष और उपाध्यक्ष होगा उसको सरकार नाम-निर्देशित करेगी । इसके प्रेसिडेंट और वाइस प्रेसिडेंट को भी सरका नामिनेट करेगी । इसलिए इस धारा के अन्दर मंत्रि-मंडल जिसे सदस्य बनाना चाहेगा, अपने आदेश द्वारा उसको मंत्रिमंडल अध्यक्ष भी बना देगा । इस प्रकार का अधिकार मंत्रिमंडल में नहीं होना चाहिए ।

इसी में मेरा दूसरा संशोधन है । अगर आप इसको इंजीनियर का इंस्टीट्यूशन बनाना चाहते हैं तो उसमें कम से कम सरकार के जो पदाधिकारी हैं, सरकारी आफिशल्स हैं, उनकी संख्या में कोई लिमिट होनी चाहिए । मैंने कहा है कि ‘एक-तिहाई से अधिक नहीं होगी’ अभी जो संख्या आपने दी है उसके अनुसार 22 होनी चाहिए ।

दूसरा मेरा जो अमेंडमेंट है वह यह है कि प्रथम परिषद् के लिए आपन कहा है कि सरकार द्वारा नामनिर्देशित सदस्य लिए जाएंगे और बाद में उस परिषद् का विधिवत गठन होगा । इसमें उस परिषद् का गठन कब होगा, इसका को उल्लेख नहीं है ।

सरकार चाहे तो पाँच वर्ष या दस वर्ष ले सकती है बिल्कुल विधिवत् निर्वाचित परिषद् का करने में । यह सरकार की इच्छा पर है । इसलिये मैंने यह कहा है कि कोई इसकी अवधि निर्धारित होनी चाहिए, कोई टाइम लिमिट होनी चाहिए ।

इसीलिये मैं अपने अपने संशोधन में कहा है :

परन्तुयहभीकिनामनिर्देशितसदस्योंसेगठितप्रथमपरिषद्कीकालावधि, किसीभीदशामें, एकवर्षसेअधिकनहींहोगी।

तो मेरा यही निवेदन है कि जो परिषद् आप नामनिर्देशित करते हैं उसकी अवधि एक वर्ष से ज्यादा नहीं होनी चाहिये । तो ये मेरी तीन बातें हैं और इसके बारे में मंत्री महोदय क्या कहना चाहते हैं वह कहें ।

SHRI M.H. SAMUEL : Sir, may I say a few words? I oppose the amendment. That is why I am speaking. Explanation is part of the Minister’s duty. I think the hon. Member, when he is talking of nominations to the Councils, Assemblies or to the Rajya Sabha or the Panchayats.

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR: Everywhere nominations are being made by the Government.

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: This is entirely different from those political bodies. Here it is a professional body. Do not make any mistake about it. It is entirely different in this particular case.

श्रीजगदम्बीप्रसादयादव : अगर आप इसको अपोज कर रहे हैं तो आप यह भी सावित करेंगें कि ऐसी जो कार्पोरेशंस और ऐसी बाडिज बनाई गई हैं उसमें मंत्री महोदय की इच्छानुसार लोगों का नामाँकन हुआ है या नहीं हुआ है सिर्फ इसको इस तरह से कह देने से ही काम नहीं चलेगा । इनके बहुत से लोग ऐसे भी होंगे जिनको यह टेक्निकल डिक्लेयर कर देंगे ।

इस तरह से खाली कह देने से क्या होता है । आप यह भी बतायेंगे कि उस हिसाब से नामांकन हुआ है या नहीं । सरकार अपने लोगों को वैसे ही नामांकित कर देती है ।

श्रीनेकीराम(हरियाणा) : पहले भी बोलते हैं और फिर उठ कर बोलने लगते हैं । बार बार बोलते हैं ।

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: I could not follow what the hon. Member has said, but anyway I will proceed. In my opinion, this Registration Council is not going to be over dominated by the Government departments. After all, please take into consideration that the Government is a big building organisation. In the Defence Ministry they have got Chief Engineers. In the Railways they have Engineers. In the CPWD they have got Engineers. Do you mean to say that the Government departments, which are employing engineers and have engineering departments, are to be excluded from the Architects' Registration Council? Would that be fair? Now, take the composition as such. The Council shall consist of the following members, namely:—five from the Institute of Architects; two nominated by the All India Council for Technical Education, five elected from among themselves by heads of architectural institutions in India; Chief Architects in the Ministries; two persons nominated by the institution of Engineers and one person nominated by the Institution of Surveyors of India. It comes to 15. These will all be non-officials. Now, 18 persons are to be nominated by 18 State Governments, but it has been provided that they need not necessarily be State Government employees. Any good engineer with a certain reputation in the profession can be nominated. It is not necessary that the State Governments should nominate their own employees. So, out of 35 members, 21 or 23 are calculated to be persons not really belonging to the Government. Therefore, I do not see how this body is not professional or is undemocratic, if at all democracy could get into this professional body.

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन: उपसभापति जी, माथुर साहब ने जो शंकायें प्रकट की हैं उनका कुछ जवाब तो श्री सैम्युल साहब ने दे दिया है । असल में स्थिति यह है कि पैंतीस सदस्यों में से अगर एक सदस्य भी केन्द्रीय सरकार का न हो तो एक तरफ तो यादव जी सारी जिम्मेदारी सरकार पर डालना चाहते हैं, और चाहते हैं कि जो घाटा हो वह केन्द्रीय सरकार दे और दूसरी तरफ अगर उनका एक भी प्रतिनिधि वहां न हो तो फिर क्या होगा ? केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह जो प्रतिनिधि है, वह सम्पर्क स्थापित करेगा, उसकी रिपोर्ट विभाग को देगा और मंत्रालय का जो दृष्टिकोण है उसको वहां पर रखेगा । तो मैं समझता हूँ कि यह उचित नहीं होगा कि वहाँ सरकार का एक भी प्रतिनिधि नहीं हो ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रशादमाथुर : यह सरकारी कर्मचारी होगा या आफिशियल होगा या नान-आफिशियल होगा, यह क्लैरिफाई कर दें । किसी भी ऐसे नेता को ला कर वहाँ बिठा दे…

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : यह मैं विश्वास दिलाता हूँ कि कोई नेता नहीं नियुक्त किया जायेगा ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रशादमाथुर : नेता ही जाता है ।

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : कम से कम नेता नहीं नियुक्त किया जायेगा, यह मैं विश्वास दिलाता हूं ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रशादमाथुर : इसको क्लैरिफाई करने में क्या दिक्कत है ?

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : श्रीमन, अब जो उन्होने सभापति और उपसभापति के समबन्ध में कहा है तो जो सभापति और उपसभापति मनोनीत किया जायेगा वह हमेशा के लिये नहीं है । जैसा कि इसमें आप देखेगें कि पृष्ठ 5 पर स्पष्ट किया गया है कि प्रेसिडेंट और वाइसप्रेसिडेंट कौंसिल के मेम्बरों द्वारा चुने जायेंगे लेकिन चूंकि पहले पहले एलेक्शन नहीं हो सकेगा, उसमें कुछ समय लगेगा इसलिये तात्कालिक व्यवस्था के रूप में यह प्रबन्ध किया जायेगा कि इस बीच में सभापति और उपसभापति को मनोनीत कर दिया जाये । इस पर तो सदन को आपत्ति नहीं होनी चाहिए ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रशादमाथुर : इसमें तो हमने अवधि निर्धारित करने के लिये ही कहा है हमने एक वर्ष कहा है, आप दो वर्ष कहें, कुछ कहें लेकिन कोई अवधि तो रखी जानी चाहिए ।

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : माथुर साहब कहते हैं कि एक वर्ष से अधिक की अवधि नहीं होनी चाहिए लेकिन हम इसको कम में भी कर सकते हैं, हम कोशिश करेंगे कि एक वर्ष के समय तक भी इंतजार न करना पड़े, हो सकता है कि छ: महीने में ही हो जाये, लेकिन हो सकता है कि सारे प्रयत्न करने पर भी इसमें डेढ़ साल या दो साल लग जायें इसलिए हम अपने हाथों को इसमें बाँध नहीं सकते ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रशादमाथुर : आप छ: महीने न लिखें, एक वर्ष न लिखें, दो वर्ष का समय ले लें लेकिन यह निश्चित कर दें कि दो वर्ष में समाप्त कर देंगे ।

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : मैं यही आश्वासन दे सकता हूँ कि यह कार्य जल्दी से जल्दी किया जायगा, और इसमें कोई देरी नहीं होने दी जायेगी, लेकिन समय को बांध कर के रख दें यह हम नहीं कर सकते । इसलिए इसके बारे में जो अमेंडमेंट है उसको मैं स्वीकार नहीं कर सकता हूं ।

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

1. "That at page 4, line 36 be deleted."

The motion was negatived.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

4."That at page 5 after line 16, the following provisos be inserted, namely:—

'Provided that the number of Government employees among the nominated members shall not exceed one-third of the total number of members;

Provided further that the term of office of the First Council consisting of nominated members shall, in no case, exceed a period of one year;"

The motion was negatived.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted. Clause 3 was added to the Bill.

Clause 4—President and Vice-President of Council


5."That at page 5, after line 22, the following proviso be inserted, namely :—

'Provided further that the President and the Vice-President of the Council shall be elected from among the non- official members'."

यह जो मेरा संशोधन है इसमें तो एक छोटी सी बात है और मुझे आशा है कि शायद मंत्री महोदय इसको स्वीकार कर लेंगें । इसमें आपने अध्यक्ष और उपाध्यक्ष रखे हैं और आप यह कहना चाहते हैं कि इसमें बड़े बड़े इंजीनियर्स आयेंगे और सारे देश के लोग होंगे तो ये जो दो लोग हैं, अध्यक्ष और उपाध्यक्ष हैं, कम से कम ये तो गैरसरकारी सदस्य होने चाहिये, केवल उसके लिये मैं यह क्लेरिफिकेशन इसमें करवाना चाहता हूँ, जिससे कि जो भी वह निर्णय लें उसमें सरकार का कोई दबाव न रहे । वह जो भी निर्णय लें उसके लिये कम से कम वह तो स्वतन्त्र रहें । इसलिये ही मैंने यह संशोधन दिया है कि अध्यक्ष और उपाध्यक्ष अशासकीय सदस्यों में से निर्वाचित किए जायेंगे । माननीय मंत्री जी आशा है इसको स्वीकार कर लेंगे ।

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : मैं माननीय सदस्य की भावना का तो आदर करता हूँ, लेकिन मैं समझ नहीं पा रहा हूँ कि यह आपत्ति उनको क्यों है ? मैं उनको यह विश्वास दिलाता हूँ कि जो भी सभापति और उपसभापति होंगे वे ऐसे व्यक्ति होंगे, जिन पर कि इंजीनियर्स तथा आर्किटेक्ट्स सब श्रद्धा रखें और जिनका कि सब आदर करते हों ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रसादमाथुर:आदर की बात नहीं है, इसको कानून में लिखा जाय, आदर के वहां कोई अर्थ नहीं होंगे ।

श्रीउपसभापति : आप इसको विद्ड्रॉ करना चाहते हैं या प्रेस करना चाहते हैं ।

श्रीजगदीशप्रसादमाथुर : मैं विद्ड्रॉ करना नहीं चाहता ।

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is :

5."That at page 5, after line 22, the following proviso be inserted, namely:—

'Provided urther that the President and the Vice-President of the Council shall be elected from among the non-official members'."

The motion was negatived.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That claust 4 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 4 was added to the Bill. Clauses 5 to 7 were added to the Bill.

Clause —Disabilities


6. "That at page 6, after line 39, the following be inserted, namely:—

'(c) has been disqualified to contest election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on account of corrupt practices'."

उपसभापति महोदय, सेलेक्ट कमेटी ने एक अमेंडमेंट स्वीकार किया है कि कोई व्यक्ति जिसको कि किसी भी अदालत केद्वारा कम कम दो साल की सजा हुई है तो उसको इसका सदस्य नहीं बनाने के लिये कहा है, तो इसके साथ ही साथ मैं यह निवेदन करना चाहता हूँ कि एक बात और जोड़ दी जाय और मेरा वह अमेंडमेंट यह है कि भ्रष्ट आचरण के कारण लोक प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 के अधीन निर्वाचन लड़ने से निरर्हित कर दिया गया है, जो भी व्यक्ति किसी भी हाईकोर्ट के द्वारा चुनाव लड़ने से दो साल के लिये या किसी भी अवधि के लिये रोक दिया गया है वह भी इसका सदस्य न बन सके, यह मेरा निवेदन है । जैसे कि श्री डी0पी0 मिश्र महोदय हैं, उनको अयोग्य घोषित कर दिया गया है, श्री चन्ना रेड्डी महोदय को छ: साल के लिये अयोग्य घोषित कर दिया गया है । तो ऐसे व्यक्तियों को भी इसमें ला कर आप रख सकेंगे ।

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: Are they architects or engineers?

श्रीजगदीशप्रसादमाथुर : इसमें एक व्यक्ति केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा नामनिर्देशित किया जायगा और यह जरूरी नहीं है कि वह सरकारी कर्मचारी हो, वह तो किसी को भी कर सकते हैं, किसी भी व्यक्ति को माननीय मंत्री महोदय नामनिर्देशित कर सकते हैं । तो जब कि सेलेक्ट कमेटी ने यह प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया है कि यदि किसी व्यक्ति को दो साल के लिये सजा हो जाय उसको न लिया जाय, तो उसी प्रकार से ऐसे गैरसरकारी व्यक्ति जो कि चुनाव लड़ने में भ्रष्ट आचरण के कारण से अयोग्य घोषित कर दिये गये हैं इस प्रकार के लोगों को भी नहीं आने दिया जाय । तो हमारा जो संशोधन है उसके द्वारा इस प्रकार के व्यक्तियों को भी लिया नहीं जा सकेगा । इस बारे में मैं सोचता हूँ कि माननीय मंत्री को कोई आपत्ति नहीं हो सकती है और इस संशोधन पर उन्हे कोई आपत्ति नहीं होनी चाहिये ।

The question was proposed.

4 P.M.

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : श्रीमन्, मुझे कुछ ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि माननीय सदस्य के सामने केवल भ्रष्टाचार का ही चित्र हमेशा रहता है । हम सब भ्रष्टाचार के विरूद्ध हैं । हम कृत संकल्प है कि उसको दूर किया जाये देश के सार्वजनिक जीवन से और सभी क्षेत्रों से । लेकिन हर जगह इसकी चर्चा लाना उचित नहीं होगा । संयुक्त समिति में इस पर पूरी तरह से विचार किया गया था और बहुत विचार विमर्श करने के बाद यह तय किया गया कि रेप्रेजेन्टेशन आप द पीपुल्स ऐक्ट के अंदर जो डिस्क्वालिफिकेशन्स रखी गई हैं उनको ही इसके अंदर भी लाया जाये । इसलिए मैं माननीय सदस्य से अनुरोध करना चाहता हूँ कि वे इसको ‘प्रेस’ न करें ।

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

6. "That at page 6, after line 39, the following be inserted, namely :

'(c) has been disqualified to contest election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on account of corrupt practices'."

The motion was negatived.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is :

"That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 8 was added to the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 23 were added to the Bill.

Clause 24—First preparation of register


8. "That at page 11,—

(i) in line 27, for the words 'an authority' the words 'a Tribunal' be substituted;

(ii) in line 30, for the word 'authority' the word 'Tribunal' be substituted;

(iii) in line 34, for the word 'authority' the word 'Tribunal' be substituted."

The question was proposed.

श्रीजगदीशप्रसादमाथुर : अभी माननीय मंत्री ने बताया कि बाकी जो दूसरे विषय हैं उनके संबंध में सरकार ने अपने ऊपर जिम्मेदारी न लेकर के, जिससे कोई भी विवाद पैदा हो, इसलिये अलग से न्यायाधिकरण बनाने का फैसला किया है । लेकिन इस धरा के अंदर ऐसा प्राविधान है कि जहाँ सरकार ने अपने ऊपर निर्णय ले लिया कि : “इस प्रकार तैयार किया गया प्रथम रजिस्टर तत्पश्चात ऐसी रीति से प्रकाशित किया जायेगा जिसे केन्द्रीय सरकार निर्दिष्ट करे और इस प्रकार प्रकाशित रजिस्टर में रजिस्ट्रीकरण अधिकरण के किसी अधिव्यक्त या विवक्षित विनिश्चय से व्यथित कोई भी व्यक्ति ऐसे प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीस दिन के भीतर ऐसे विनिश्चय के विरूद्ध अपील ऐसे प्राधिकारी को कर सकेगा जिसे केन्द्रीय सरकार ने शासकीय राजपत्र में अधिसूचना द्वारा, इस निमित्त नियुक्त किया हो ।“ अब यह जो प्राधिकारी नियुक्त करने की बात है, एक जगह आपने स्वयं माना है कि सेलेक्ट कमेटी ने सुझाव दिया है कि सरकार को अपने ऊपर इस ढंग का निर्णय नहीं लेना चाहिये, और जो विवाद हो ट्राइब्यूनल में जाना चाहिये फिर इंजीनियरों को जिनको रजिस्ट्रेशन के बारे में शिकायत हो, उनके बारे में फैसला करने का अधिकार सरकार ने अपने प्राधिकारी के पास क्यों लिया । अगर इस जगह भी ट्राइब्यूनल कर देते, न्यायाधिकरण कर देते तो आपने जिस तरह से सुझाव दिया था, अगर उसको मानते हैं तो मेरा निवेदन है कि यहाँ प्राधिकारी की जगह आप न्यायाधिकरण शब्द रखें ।

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: I wanted to say, how can an appeal against a tribunal go back to the tribunal? Therefore, we considered that an appeal against a tribunal's verdict should be heard by somebody other than the tribunal. For this purpose the authority is to be constituted, under the recommendation of the Registration Council, by the Government, and that will go into any appeal coming against a tribunal.

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR: Judicial authority or governmental authority? It must be defined. Otherwise it will create complications.

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: Judicial authority or a political authority to decide about architectural matters?

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR: When first you have given it to a tribunal, why are you hesitating now?

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: You want it to go back to the tribunal again? A tribunal gives a verdict and a dispute against the verdict, yon want it to go back to the tribunal?

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR: A judicial institution.

SHRI M. H. SAMUEL: For these considerations the Committee felt that an independent authority should be there.

श्रीभक्तिदर्शन : श्रीमन्, मुझे तो और कुछ कहने की जरूरत नहीं है । ट्राइब्यूनल के ऊपर एक और ट्राइब्यूनल नहीं हो सकता है । एक अधिकारी नियुक्त किया जायेगा जो इस तरह की शिकायतों की जाँच करेगा । यह व्यवस्था संतोषजनक है ।

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

8. "That at page 11,—

(i) in line 27, for the words 'an authority' thewords 'a Tribunal' be substituted;

(ii) in line 30, for the word 'authority' the word 'Tribunal' be substituted;

(iii) in line 34, for the word 'authority' theword 'Tribunal' be substituted."


The motion w is negatived.

MR. DEPUT/ CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That claus. 24 stand part of the Bill"

The motion M is adopted.

Clause 24 was added to the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 were added to the Bill.

Clause 2 —Renewal fees


10. "That at page 12, line 42, for the words 'before' the words 'within one month after' be substituted."

उपसभापति महोदय, यह तो जो इसके सदस्य होंगे उनकी सुविधा के लिये है । कहीं पर भी जहां भी इस तरह रेन्युअल का प्रश्न आता है, किसी कानून के अंदर ऐसा नहीं है कि रजिस्ट्रेशन कि अवधि समाप्त होते ही, अगर किसी ने फीस जमा नहीं कराई, अगर 31 मार्च डेट है और 31 मार्च तक वह फीस न जमा कर सके तो 1 अप्रैल को उसका नाम कट जाये । इसके अंदर यह प्रावधान है कि जो नियत तिथि है, रेन्युअल डेट है, उसके अंदर जमा नहीं कराए तो नाम काट दिया जायेगा दोबारा नाम लिखवाने के लिये तमाम प्रोसीजर में उसको जाना पड़ेगा। इसलिये मेरा निवेदन है कि कम से कम एक महीने की अवधि हो जिसमें उसको सूचना भी हो जाये । छोटे से छोटा मामूली सा ड्राइविंग का भी लाइसेन्स होता है, तो उसमें भी उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय, इस प्रकार से कैन्सलेशन नहीं होता है । उसमें थोड़ा जुर्माना कर देते हैं । लेकिन इस प्रकार के इन्स्टीट्यूशन मेन जहाँ ऐसे लोग हैं, अगर भूल से भी रह गया जमा कराने के लिये, तो एक वर्ष के समाप्त होते ही उसका नाम काट दिया जायेगा । अगर नाम काटने की बजाय, एक महीने की व्यवस्था रख दी जाये तो मैं समझता हूँ कि किसी को कोई आपत्ति नहीं होनी चाहिये ।

The question was proposed.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is :

10. "That at page 12, line 42, for the word 'before' the words 'within one month after' be substituted."

The motion was adopted.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 27, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Clauses 28 to 44 and the Schedule were added to the Bill.

Clause I—Short title, .extent and commencement


2. "That at page 3, line 5, for the figure '1969' the figure '1970' be substituted."

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The question is:

"That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause I, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Enacting Formula


1. "That at page 3, line 1, for the word 'Twentieth' the word Twenty-first' be substituted."

The question was put and the motton was adopted.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That the Enacting Formula, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

The motion was adopted.

The Enacting Formula, as amended, was added to the Bill.

The Title was added to the Bill.


"That the Bill, as amended, be passed."

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

  • 1. Session Number: 55
    Date of debate:
    Debate type: Part 1(Question and Answer)
    Debate title subject: ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    Question number: 868
    Question type: Starred
    Questioner name: INDER KUMAR GUJRAL
    Page number from to: 5157-5160
    Ministry: EDUCAITON
    Minister's name: M.C. CHAGLA
    Date of Publishing: 7-Dec-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 1 (Question And Answer)
  • 2. 10-Dec-1968Session Number: 66
    Date of debate: 10-Dec-1968
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Debate title subject: GOVERNMENT BILLS- INTRODUCTION
    Page number from to: 3465-3466
    Ministry : EDUCATION
    Minister's name: TRIGUNA SEN
    Date of Publishing: 11-Nov-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)
  • 3. Session Number: 68
    Date of debate: 15-May-1969
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Title: THE ARCHITECTS BILL, 1968
    Page number from to: 3226-3232
    Minister's name: V.K.R.V. RAO
    Date of Publishing: 3-Nov-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)
  • 4. Session Number: 68
    Date of debate: 16-May-1969
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Debate title subject: MESSAGE FROM THE LOK SABHA
    Title: I. The Architects Bill, 1968,II. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1968,III. The Hire-Purchase Bill, 1968,IV. The West Bengal Legislative Council (Abolition) Bill, 1969.
    Page number from to: 3502-3506
    Date of Publishing: 3-Nov-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)
  • 5. Session Number: 69
    Date of debate: 4-Aug-1969
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Debate title subject: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE TIME
    Members Participated: MUDUMALA HENRY SAMUEL
    Page number from to: 2259
    Date of Publishing: 1-Nov-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)
  • 6. Session Number: 70
    Date of debate: 28-Nov-1969
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Members Participated: U.N. MAHIDA
    Page number from to: 1975
    Date of Publishing: 31-Oct-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)
  • 7. Session Number: 72
    Date of debate: 7-May-1970
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Debate title subject: CALLING ATTENTION
    Title: THE ARCHITECTS BILL, 1968
    Page number from to: 144-149
    Minister's name: BHAKT DARSHAN
    Date of Publishing: 21-Oct-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)
  • 8. Date of debate: 7-May-1970
    Debate type: Part 2(Other than Question and Answer)
    Title: THE ARCHITECTS BILL, 1968
    Members Participated: DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
    V.B. RAJU
    Page number from to: 152-187
    Date of Publishing: 21-Oct-2011
    Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)