May 24, 1972/JYAISTHA 3, 1894 (SAKA)
13.04 hrs.
ARCHITECTS BILL
THE DEPUTY MINISTER IN THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE AND IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE (SHRI D.P. YADAV): On behalf of Prof. S. Nurul Hasen, I beg to move1:
“That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for matters connected therewith, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration.”
As the House knows, the question constitution of a body of architects and regulation of the profession of architects has been under consideration of the Government of India for a long time. After careful consideration of all aspects of the matter, the Central Government prepared a bill and discussed it with Central Ministries and other organisations concerned, the State Government, professional bodies and also with the All India Council of Technical Education. On the basis of these discussions, the Bill was finalised and introduced in the House on 10th December, 1968. The House discussed the Bill on 15th May 1969 and approved a motion of the then Minister for Education and Youth Services, Prof. VKRV Rao, to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha also concurred in the proposal to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee, on 16th May 1969.
The Joint Committee, under the chairmanship of late Shri Henry Samuel and consisting of 15 members of the Rajya Sabha and 30 members of the Lok Sabha examined the provisions of the Bill, considered all memoranda, representations and references received from professional bodies, individual and other organisations and heard a number of witnesses and finally submitted its report on 28th November, 1969. The amendments made by the Joint Committee to the provisions of the original Bills were all passed by Rajya Sabha [in] its sitting on 7th May 1970.
Subsequently, the Bill along with the amendments as passed by Rajya Sabha, came before the Lok Sabha and a detailed debate took place on 25th, 26th and 27th November 1970. The Lok Sabha also passed all the amendment (sic!), suggested by the Joint Committee and in addition it also made amendments to certain other provisions of the Bill. All of us had hoped that the Bill as amended by the Lok Sabha would be passed by the Rajya Sabha. Unfortunately, before this could happen, the Fourth Lok Sabha was dissolved and the Bill lapsed. The Government, therefore, has taken the first opportunity available to bring the Bill forward again in this House. This Bill incorporates all the amendments made by the Joint Committee as also amendments passed by the Rajya Sabha and the previous Lok Sabha. It is absolutely in a final form and incorporates all the valid points raised and accepted in the discussion and debates in the Select Committee in both Houses of Parliament.
In conclusion, I wish to point out that the question of registration of architects has been before the Central Government for a long time. During that period, we have had many discussions and consultations with almost all professional organisation, experts, State Governments and Central Ministries. We have also had the benefit of the advice and guidance of a Joint Committee of the former Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. After all these discussions and consultations, we have now brought forward the Bill in the final form. Every provision of the bill has been drafted with great care and deliberation and represents practically unanimity of approach or views on the part of experts, organisations and others concerned. We have ensured that every legitimate interest is fully protected and at the same time the stature and integrity of architectural profession elevated. I would now request the House the pass the Bill unanimously.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion moved: “That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for matters connected therewith as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration.”
SHRI S.M. BANERJEE: There was a Council in Maharashtra. They had submitted a petition. Does it include that also?
SHRI DP YADAV: There are certain amendments. If the hon Member specified the amendment, I will read it out.
MR. SPEAKER: Shri Somnath Chatterjee.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (Burdwan): This appears to be non-controversial Bill, but certain provisions which have been incorporated in this Bill, to my mind, will not serve the purpose of the Bill for which it is intended. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is said
“With this increase in building activity many unqualified persons calling themselves as architects are undertaking construction of buildings which are uneconomical and quite frequently are unsafe, thus bringing into disrepute the profession of architects”
Various organisations are supposed to have made representations. It is a known principle that some law should be there to regulate the activity of every type of professional people, and to that extent this Bill is welcome. But as it is well-known the architects only prepare draft plans of designs. They do not carry out the actual building activity. It is the job of the engineers and, more significantly the engineers have been left completely outside the scope of this Bill. The building activity is supposed to be done not in a proper manner, in an uneconomical manner and in an unsafe manner and the problem is sought to be tackled only by regulating the architects. It only provides for registration of architects. The civil engineers who are responsible for construction are completely outside the scope of this Bill. I don’t know why. How can the main purpose of this Bill be achieved in this piecemeal measure which has been brought before the house?
It is well-known that in most of the cities, only there the question of big building is relevant, in village buildings are not so big and they do not come with the scope of this Bill—you have municipal laws which require engineers to certify the plans and designs which are drawn up for the purpose of erection of buildings. For them the minimum requirements have already been laid down. Regulation of architects only will not solve the purpose unless the engineers who are responsible for the construction are also brought under control. No suggestion whatsoever has been given in the Bill as to how that can be achieved.
The next point which I wish to draw the attention of the hon Minister is that of the object is that we should have services available of competent architects and that the building activity which has been going on in this country and which is expected to go up further, should be in the hands of competent persons and that ordinary people should get the benefit of these competent people. I would have thought that Government would itself provide for drawing up or for preparation of a panel of architects so that persons, ordinary persons of humble means who want to build small houses and who cannot go to the architects whose fees are generally known to be very high or to well-known engineers who also charge very high fees, for them the Government should make available the services of architects or engineers and a panel of them will be prepared by the Government and ordinary people can take recourse to them just like the idea of giving free legal aid which we have been suggesting for quite a long time. So small people who want to make construction of their small houses with their life’s savings or from borrowings should have been given the facilities of getting the services of architects or engineer and their panels should be prepared by the Government and fees also fixed by the Government at a reasonable level. No thought has been given to this aspect and we find only that certain provisions have been made for the registration of architects as if that will solve all the problem of unsafe buildings with which they have nothing to do or they will solve the problem of uneconomical constructions as if the architects have anything to do with that I don’t know how the purpose or objects of the Bill can be achieved by mere registration of the architects because that does not touch even the fringe of the problem.
So far as the Bill is concerned, there is one provision which requires immediate attention because I will request the hon Minister to look into it because we have not been able to give an amendment Cl 30 lays down procedure in respect of inquiries made with regard to professional misconduct allegedly committed by an architect. It says:
“When on receipt of a complaint made to it, the Council (to be set up under the act) is of opinion that any architect has been guilty of professional misconduct which if proved, will render him unfit to practise as an architect, the Council may hold an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules.”
This is the only ground on which an inquiry can be made and his name removed for professional misconduct. What about inefficiency? What about incompetence? That does not come within ‘professional misconduct’. The building may be badly designed or badly put up because of the inefficiency or because of the incompetence of the architect or of the engineer or of both, working together, but that will not be covered by Clause 30 because professional misconduct necessarily means some sort of culpability which does not necessarily mean negligence or incompetence or inefficiency. Therefore, I would request the hon Minister to take that into consideration. If the object is to have safer buildings or better buildings or more economical buildings, we cannot possibly continue to have inefficient architects or incompetent architects. For that matter it will be outside the scope of the entire provision of the inquiry that has been provided in clause 30 of the bill. Therefore, I request the hon Minister to look into that and, if possible, to remedy this defect.
So far as the other provisions in the Bill are concerned, I request the Government to consider whether the provision of Clause 17 is not inconsistent with Clause 25. Clause 17 says:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to he provision of this Act, any recognised qualification shall be a sufficient qualification for enrolment in the register.”
A register is to be maintained under this Act. It says that if somebody qualifies in accordance with the recognised qualification, then he is automatically entitled to be enrolled in the register. Kindly see clause 25. Clause 25 says:
“A person shall be entitle on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by rules to have his name entered in the register if he resides or carries on the profession of architect in India and—
- Holds recognised qualification, or
- Does not hold such qualification but being citizen of India, has engaged in practice as an architect for a period of no less than five years prior to the date”
You will kindly come to clause 23. It provides for the preparation of a register of architects as laid down there. Therefore there is an anomaly. Under clause 17 there is an automatic registration because any recognised qualification will be sufficient qualification and so far as clause 25 is concerned, other qualifications will have to be fulfilled and apart from that, clause (b) says that somebody may be registered as an architect without holding any qualification. Therefore how is this qualification to be judged? Merely, one has engaged in practice as an architect for a period of not less than five years, then he will be deemed to be a qualified architect and he will be entitled to registration provided he only pays the fees?
Therefore, we come to a situation where apart from qualified architects, there may be persons who may be having no qualifications. In the Bill no standards have been laid down, no rules have been laid down as to how the competence or efficiency of these persons who have no recognised qualification will be judged. Nothing has been laid down in this Bill. Therefore, in my submission, the object for which this Bill is primarily intended to be brought and has been brought, cannot be served only by including the architects and not the engineers and not laying down the provisions as to how the persons qualified and also those not qualified strictly according to the technical requirements are to be brought together.
And the last thing I wanted to submit is that the Government should favourably consider whether the Government should not prepare a panel for itself and regulate the fees also of the architects so that ordinary people can take recourse to competent and qualified people for the purpose of their own buildings. Otherwise, the main purpose of this Bill will not be served.
Thank you, Sir.
श्री आर. बी. वड़े (खरगोन): अध्यक्ष महोदय, यह बिल जो साशन ने हाउस के सामने पास होने के लिए पेश किया है यह पहले भी पेश हुआ था और जॉइंट कमेटी के सामने भेजा गया था | उन की रिपोर्ट आई है और रिपोर्ट आने के बाद उसमे बहुत सी तब्दीलिआ करके यह बिल लाया गया है | लेकिन उसमे इस बिल का उद्देश्यफलीभूत हुआ है क्या ? इस बिल की हैडिंग दी है -- आर्चीटेक्ट्स बिल | इसके बदले इसका नाम आर्चीटेक्ट्स रजिस्ट्रेशन बिल होना चाहिए था क्योंकि पूरे के पुरबिल मै आर्चीटेक्ट्स को रजिस्ट्रेशन कैसे मिलान है इसी के बारे में प्रोविसिओं है | लेकिन आर्चीटेक्ट्स की फीस क्या होगी या और बातें क्या होगी यह इस में नहीं है | आर्चीटेक्ट्स की क्वॉलिफिएशन क्या होगी यह तो कुछ दिया है, लेकिन आर्चीटेक्ट्स की डेफिनिशन यह दे है की दोस हु आर क्वालिफाइड फॉर आर्किटेक्ट और यह बिल आने से पहले पांच साल मि जो आर्किटेक्ट का धंधा करता होगा उस को आर्किटेक्ट में रखा जायेगा | ऐसे हालत मई अगर कोई आर्किटेक्ट क्वालिफिकेशन होते हुए भी धंधा करता है रजिस्ट्रशन नहीं कराएगा तो उस को पनिशमेंट मिलेगा | मई ऐसा समझता हूँ कि देश बहुत विशाल देश है, यहाँ पर छोटे छोटे गांव है, छोटी छोटी नगरपालिकायें है, उनके नियमों मैं ऐसा लिखा आ है कि मकान बनाने के लिये जो प्लान आयेगा, उस पर आर्किटेक्ट के दस्तखत होने चाहिए, तभी उस को मंजूर कियाजायेगा, ऐसे हालत पे आप के दिये हूए क्वालिफिकेशन का आर्किटेक्ट नहीं होगा तब क्या स्थिति होगी, अगर 10 या 20 परसेंट टैक्स लग गया तो गरीब आदमी माराजाएगा | इस से बहुत बड़ी दिक्कत पैदा होगी |
इस बिल में आप ने सीविल एन्जिनियर्स को नहीं लिया हैं | जब ये बिल ज्वॉइंट सीलेक्ट कमेटी के विचाराधीन था, वहां पैर श्री मोहन बारिया ने एक प्रश्न पूछा था –
“Do you agree that to-day in this country there are many engineers who are also doing the job of architects, and in the world even engineers like Mr. Frank Lloyd and Mr. Michael are primarily engineers but they have proved to be the best architects of international repute? Under these circumstances if the present engineers who are also architects in the country might not have obtained their degrees as architects, how should they be protected?”
उस समय इस विषय पैर काफी चर्चा हुई थी और कहा गया था की एन्जिनियर्स को भी इस मैं इंक्लूड किया जायेगा | मैं मंत्री महोदय से जानना चाहता हूं कि इस के बारे में आप का क्या विचार हैं -- आप उनको इन्क्लुडे करना चाहते हैं या नहीं करना चाहते हैं -- आर्किटेक्ट ऑफ़ नेशन होते हैं, आर्किटेक्ट ऑफ़ कंस्टीटूशन हैं, उसीतरह से आर्किटेक्ट ऑफ़ बिल्डिंग हैं और उसमे एन्जिनियर्स भी शामिल हैं | मई यह समझता हूं कि इसमें जो आर्किटेक्ट शब्द लिखा हुआ हैं, इससे केवल रजिस्ट्रेशनचाहते हैं, इससे जो आप का उद्देश्य हैं, वह फलीभूत नहीं होगा |
इसके बाद जितने एन्जिनियर्स हैं आर्चीटेक्ट्स हैं, जो उन-एम्पलायेड हिअ उसने वास्ते फण्ड की बात हैं की गरीब लिटिगेनट्स को मदद मिलेगी, वैसे इस बिल में भीप्राविजन रखा जाता कि उनको प्रैक्टिस स्टार्ट करने के लिए फण्ड से मदद मिलेगी, क्योंकि इसमें फण्ड के निर्माण का प्राविजन हैं, उसमे आप ऐसी व्यवस्था भी रख सकते थे |
जहाँ तक आर्चीटेक्ट्स के रजिस्ट्रेशन का प्राविजन हैं, आपने कहा हैं कि पांच साल का वोट करने वाले को लिया जाएगा तो आर्चीटेक्ट्स के नकशा निकालने वाले कोसमझेंगे, जिसके पास सर्टिफिकेट होगा उसको आर्किटेक्ट मन जाएगा या जो इंडियन इंस्टीटूशन्स हैं, जिन में आर्किटेक्ट की ट्रेनिंग होती हैं या जिनके पास डिप्लोमासहै उनको भी इस में शामिल किया जाएगा | इस बात की इसमें शंका उत्पन्न होती हैं क्योंकि यहाँ पैर रजिस्ट्रशन के बारे में लिखा है, वहां यस बात स्पष्ट नहीं होती है |
मैं ऐसा अनुभव करता हु कि ज्वाइंट सेलेक्ट कमेटी मैं जो बातें कही गयी थी, उनकी तरफ ध्यान नहीं दिया गया हैं | वह पैर बरुआ जी की एविडेंस हुई थी, धरिअ जी की एविडेंस हुई थी, उन बातों के बारे मे इससे कोई अमेंडमेंट नहीं आया | इसलिये मेरा ऐसा विचार हैं कि इस कानून का जो परपज था, वह सर्व नहीं होगा |
यह बात ठीक हैं कि हिंदुस्तान में आर्चीटेक्ट्स का होना ज़रुरी है, उनके बिना काम नहीं चलेगा | उनका का सुपरविजन ऑफ बिल्डिंग भी होता है तो यह जो सर्टिफिकेटदेंगे के की हम ने सुपरविजन किया है, वह स्टैण्डर्ड के मुताबिक है या नहीं है, अगर वह गिर पड़े तो क्या कोई पनिशमेंट होगा | इसके लिए दो-तीन साल जवाबदारी यागारन्टी होनी चाहिये -- वह भी इस बिल मे नहीं है |
मैं चाहता हू कि मंत्री महोदय ज्वाइन्ट सेलेक्ट कमेटी मे जो डिसकसन हुआ था उनके बारे मे प्रकाश डाले | मुझे जहाँ-वह खामियां दिखाई पड़ी है, मैं ने अमेंडमेंटस दिएहै |प भी मैं इस बिल को सपोर्ट करता हू | लेकिन इस का नाम आर्चीटेक्ट्स बिल रखना मिलसीडिंग है | इसका नाम आर्किटेक्ट रजिस्ट्रेशन बिल होना चाहिये था | इंग्लैंड मे भी इस प्रकार के कानून है, लेकिन वे परफेक्ट-ला है, रजिस्ट्रेशन के लिए अलग कानून है और आर्किटेक्ट किस प्रकार का होना चाहिए उसके बारे में अलगकानून है | सज्वाइंट सेलेक्ट कमेटी में भी इसके बारे मे कहा गया था |
शेडूल्स का जहाँ तक सम्बन्ध हैं ज्वाइंट सेलेक्ट कमेटी मैं तीन चार शेडूल्स दिए गये थे, लेकिन मंत्री महोदय ने सिर्फ एक ही शेडूल्स एक्सप्ट किया है यह लिए मेरेख्याल में यह इन्कम्प्लीट बिल है | मई आशा करता हू कि इस में सिविल एन्जिनियर्स को जरूर शामिल किया जायेगा | इन शब्दों के साथ मैं इस बिल को सपोर्टकरता हु |
SHRI DHAMANKAR (Bhiwandi): I rise to welcome and support this Bill. Development activity in the country is increasing at a fast rate and wrong type of people without proper qualifications come into the picture and the buildings are at times unsafe. In order to protect this a Bill has been brought forward by the Government. In the schedule of qualifications we find that civil engineers are omitted. Civil engineers have to undergo a course of planning and designing. I feel that civil engineers should be included provided they have at least one year experience of working in an architect’s firm.
13:28 hrs
[MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]
Secondly, it says that an annual fee of Rs. 20 will be charged. Besides this, practicing architects have to pay license fees in different municipal cities. In big corporations they charge Rs. 250 per year, in small municipalities the fees are perhaps less. If this fee of Rs. 20/- provided for in this bill is raised to Rs 250/- per year and they are allowed to practice all over India, I think it will solve the problem of the architects. With these two suggestions I support the Bill.
SHRI SM BANERJEE (Kanpur): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill. After it has been passed by the Rajya Sabha and after each clause has been gone in, in great detail by the Joint Committee, I think that best person to reply is Mr. Piloo Mody and instead of the Minster, let him reply to the debate, he will do it better. Let us evolve some healthy traditions in the House. In Parliament his contribution may be questionable, his contribution in that particular line is unquestionable.
My hon friend Chatterjee has pointed out certain lacunae, especially in clause 25 which means qualifications. Clause 25 says that a person shall be entitled on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by rules to have his name entered in the register, if he resides or carries on the profession of architecture in India and holds a recognised qualification, or does not hold such a qualification but being a citizen of India has been engaged in practice as an architect for a period of not less than five years prior to the date appointed or possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed by rules.
It has been stated by many Members in this house that civil engineers should also be included .there is some difference between an architect and a civil engineer. In this case, a person who has no qualification, neither a civil engineer or an overseer or diploma holder from an institution but who has merely worked for five years with Mr. Piloo Mody can become an architect. Anybody who stays with Piloo Mody, even his servant or anybody else can fall within this category and can become an architect.
So, I hope that there should be some clarification—‘possess such other qualifications as may be prescribed by rules.’ Who is going to prescribe these rules—this council, that is all.
But, primarily, Sir, he should be in that particular line for five years. I feel if really we want to encourage that good architects should actually design the various buildings in this country, when the construction work is going on so much in every city especially in Delhi, we shall not be able to recognise Delhi after 10 years, so there should be some qualified person incharge of it. I would request hon Minister to kindly specify why has this particular clause been put? It is because some people are already working as architects. They have been trained as architects. If that is so, I have no objection. But merely because somebody has worked with particular architect of reputation he should not be exempted and granted a license.
Clause 12 reads as under,
(a) Appoint a Registrar who shall act as its Secretary and who may also act if so decided by the Council, as its treasurer,
then clause 12 says “with the previous sanction of the Central Government, fix the pay and allowances and other conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Council.”
It has not been decided what should be the pay and allowances of those officers and those employees working in that Council. Again, Sir, it has come into clash with the Central Government, in the name of autonomy and those employees who are likely to be recruited after the formation of the Council after the passing of this Bill may suffer in the same manner as other employees in various Corporations suffer. What I want is that it should be clearly mentioned there that with the previous sanction of the Central Government fix the pay and allowances and other conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Council as prescribed in the Central Government undertakings as applicable to Central Government undertakings.
Some of the Corporations are suffering from various handicaps because in the matter of pay and allowances they are like the Government employees and not the Central Government employees. They are treated Central Government employees for the purposes of 1, 2 and 3 and not for 4, 5 and 6. In the case of discipline this Article 311 is not applicable in their case. You have seen the Food Corporation and other Corporations also. My fear is that in this case it should be made clear that those employees who will be serving this particular Council will be governed by all the rules and regulations applicable to that of Central Government employees.
Now the Pay Commission is there. Supposing the Report is out tomorrow or after two months, thus will not be made applicable. They will suffer because it is not prescribed here ‘with the previous sanction of the Central Government’. The Central Government will only sanction the appointment of such staff, fix the pay and allowances and other conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Council. I feel it should be made clear that they should be treated as Central Government employees for the purpose of pay and allowance and other amenities.
Then I come to Clause 30. My hon friend Shri Somnath Chatterjee stated about procedure in inquiries relating to misconduct. Sir, it is clearly stated that on receipt of a complaint, when the Council is of the opinion that any architect has been guilty of professional misconduct (the word efficiency has not found a place in it) he may be debarred from professional conduct. It may be very good. But he does not know ABC of it.
SHRI JB PATNAIK (Cuttak): He may lose his practice.
SHRI SM BANERJEE: You go to Corporation. A building is constructed in Delhi city. An extra room is also constructed. You go to the architect, get a certificate for him. This is going on every day in Delhi and other metropolitan cities. Professional misconduct is a very wide term. The word “inefficiency” should find someplace there. Otherwise, if an architect, civil engineer and an overseer connive and construct a building, it will collapse like a pack of cards. Instead of cement, they will use sand, instead of bricks something else and so on. This is what is happening with the contractor’s work. They constructed a building “Suryadoya” —Sun Rise—in Lucknow for the Central Command. It became Suryasth within one month and started leaking during the rainy season. When we raised it, they said, it is actually meant to judge whether it leaks or not. This is one of the biggest buildings built for the Central Government of the Army in Lucknow. So, “inefficiency” should also be mentioned here.
I am told that the demands put forward by one of the Councils of architects in Maharashtra have been met. If the Minister gives the assurance that they have been met, I shall not pursue it. Otherwise, I would request him to look into these demands.
I know certain very bright boys who have qualified as architect after the five year degree course in IIT Kharagpur and other places. They are full-fledged architects, but they are unemployed. This Bill provides that a man with five years of experience without any qualification can be registered as an architect. What about these qualified people? I would request the Minister to take out a list of those architects who are without job. I know some of them have been appointed as Deputy Town Planner etc on a salary of Rs 350 or 400. Sir, daily construction work is increasing and we are trying to rebuild our ountry. So, at least architects and engineers should not be unemployed.
It is possible to bring Civil Engineers under the purview of this legislation, I would welcome it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have been requested to see if this bill can be passed by 2 PM because at 2 we have to take up another item. I do not know whether it will be possible. Let us see.
SHRI PILOO MODY (Godhra): Sir, I will not take much time. On the last occasion when this Bill was brought before Parliament, I was a little hast and congratulated the Minter, Dr VKRV Rao, for having made history in introducing this Bill and seeing it through, because this bill has been on the anvil for something like 23 to 24 years. At least almost after a quarter of a century, this demand is being finally met by the Government of India and I congratulate Prof. Nurul Hasan on this very great occasion, at least as far as architects are concerned. Mr. Banerjee, a little earlier, was in a generous mood and felt that I should reply to this debate, instead of the minister. If that means I would be mistaken to be a minister, I do not think my reputation can afford such a misunderstanding.
There are several misconceptions regarding this Bill. This is merely a Bill which protects the word “architect”. It is not going to provide employment for architects. It is not going to remove the other [unreadble] of the profession. It is not going to do any of the things that are going to bring about a healthy architectural tradition in this country. But this is the first step, and it is a very positive step and, as I said, it is a step which has been taken after 25 years of debate. Therefore, we all should welcome this Bill.
One misconception that seems to be flowing is that those who are practicing architecture and calling themselves ‘architects’ should not be deprived of the livelihood they have taken up for the last five years. As Shri Banerjee rightly pointed out, this clause will not go towards improving the profession of architecture but it will certainly go a long way in mitigating the hardships that a great many people are likely to suffer as a result of the introduction of this. When you do something like this you do not want to cut away and completely render unemployed a large section of people who have been, for one reason or another practicing as ‘architects’. That is why this provision has been introduced.
Another suggestion that was made by Shri Banerjee was that there should be some penalty for inefficiency. I would like to point out to him that we are not passing an amendment to the Indian Penal Code. We are merely protecting word in the English language and I hope also in all the vernacular languages which permits a man to call himself an architect if he satisfies certain qualifications. This is the sum total of it. We have been going through all the demands that were made to the Joint Committee and even before, and we have tried to satisfy all demands, because we do not want to make this Bill specially controversial, so we thought in order to make it so simple that nobody feels aggrieved as a result of this Bill, we incorporated in the schedule at the back as well as in the text of the Bill that all those who feel so should be entitled to practice architecture. This Bill is for future generations, those who call themselves architects will have the requisite qualifications as understood by modern civilisation. Therefore, this Bill may not have its immediate impact on architecture in India, I think over a period of 10, 20 or 30 years the register will begin to change in colour and complexion and will afterwards truly represent those who are capable of practicing the profession of architecture.
One more suggestion has been made why engineers also should not be included in this. The simple reply would be for the same reason that doctors are not included in this Bill. A Bill is forthcoming very soon, I am told, which will protect the title of engineers those who are qualified to practice engineering. To believe that anybody can put up a building provided he knows how to make the four corners of the building stand is a misconception. There is something more to architecture than mere stability. Therefore engineers have not been included. They will be included when this Bill comes before the Parliament. With these words I welcome the Bill and I recommend to the House that we pass this Bill without further debate.
SHRI BV NAIK (Kanara): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir I welcome this Bill. Till now architecture has remained a profession of the urban elite because the fees are rather considerable and it has been possible to hire the service of architects only in respect of big buildings, public buildings and mansions constituted by very well-off people. I think the greatest measure of economy in the building construction will be in the vast amount of rural construction works that we will be undertaking. While the Bill is internally self-consistent, the only handicap which I see is whether it will be possible for us to have a group of people who will be available with their services in the moufssils and in the very interior areas of this country, who will be in a position to help us in the rural construction works and in the construction of buildings in the countryside. I think it would be well beyond the means of such people who will be working and operating in the interior areas in this country, very widespread as they are, to be in a position to come over here or to get into the headquarters that is indicated, namely, New Delhi, and then get themselves enrolled as architects.
I agree with the point of view put forward by our esteemed friend, Shri Piloo Mody, that architecture is a discipline not necessarily connected with being able to be an engineer. After all, this is an applied art and we can say that people very well-known as architects, like Corbusier were never the big wigs in the fields of engineering.
So, I would say that it would be a bit too far to ask that this profession of architects is left as an exclusive preserve for the civil engineering graduates that are coming out of our Universities. There is no harm as to why a civil engineering graduate should not be an architect. But to impose a condition that it should be a civil engineer alone who is eligible and having the requisite qualification would be stretching the imagination of an architect a bit too far.
Sir, while welcoming this Bill—this is in line and in the tradition of many other professional associations like the Institute of Chartered Accountants, like the Institute of Bankers, like the Institute of Solicitors—the only handicap—I know it is being tried for the last 25 years to be introduced here—is that there is no provision in the entire Bill in regard to the period of prohibition or what we call as the principle of being understudy for a considerable period of time. It is not only necessary that the best of architects are produced to serve in our schools of architecture or in the colleges of architecture but also under certain maestros. I, therefore think it is possible for the Minister now or at a future date—now that it has come to a final stage—to incorporate this provision of being understudies or being able to study under certain famous architects. That would be a good contribution to this entire profession of architecture. This is very important for us. Thank you, Sir.
SHRI DP YADAV: I am thankful to the hon Members. So far as the apprehensions made by them, I have already spelt out in my introductory speech that it has taken about 5 years to bring this Bill in the final shape and I personally feel that there is no necessity at this stage for any further amendments to it. There should not be any apprehension. The Bill is intended to protect the architects. Engineers are free to do work relating to design and construction of buildings provided they do not call themselves architects. Further, any engineer who has been practicing architecture for at least 5 years can be registered as an architect. So, this question does not arise and there should not be any apprehension that engineers will not be included in it. I can assure the House so far.
Let this Bill be passed at this stage and in future if the august House feels that may amend is necessary, the Government will not mind to accept it.
Ultimately, I congratulate Shri Piloo Mody as he has answered to many of the queries and questions. Here I remember the words of one of the great scientists, Lineus, who correctly said that, if you detect any mistakes of mine, I rely on your superior knowledge to excuse them. I am thankful for the friendly corrections. With these words, I will request the House to pass the Bill.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is
“That the Bill to provide for the registration of architects and for matters connected therewith as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration”
The Motion was adopted
Clause 2—(Definitions)
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, we take up clause-by-clause consideration.
There are a number of amendments to various clauses. To clause 2, there are amendments given notice of by Mr. Bade and others. Are you moving, Mr. Bade? I will put it to the House.
SHRI RV BADE: I want to say a few words.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have to conclude by 2 PM.
SHRI RV BADE: I will say only a few words in regard to clause 2.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, SOCIAL WELFARE AND CULTURE (PROF. S. NURUL HASAN): The amendments have already been circulated. The hon Member need not read the amendment.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You need not read the amendment. You can make your submission.
SHRI SURENDRA MOHANTY (Kendrapara): It is unparliamentary to read it?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not a question of being unparliamentary. It is a question of consuming time.
SHRI RV BADE: I beg to move
Page 1, like II,—
add at the end—
“and includes a person qualified to design and supervise the erection of any building and also includes Civil Engineers.” (1)
‘Architect’ means a person whose name is for the time being entered in the register. I want dd at the end the following:
“and includes a person qualified to design and supervise any building and also includes Civil Engineers”
I want to make it more explicit, wider, so that all civil engineers may be included. Civil engineers take certificates. As a matter of fact, they become diploma holders. They will not take the trouble to register themselves. Therefore, I want to include this in the Bill.
PROF. S. NURUL HASAN: I am unable to accept the amendment, Sir.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I shall now put Mr. Bade’s amendment to the vote of the House.
Amendment No 1 was put and negatived
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is;
“That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.”
The motion was adopted.
Clause 2 was added to the Bill.
Clause 3—(Constitution of Council of Architecture)
SHRI RV BADE: I beg to move:
Page 2, line 32,—
Add at the end—
“from among the architects” (2)
page 2,—
after line 38, insert—
“(1) two persons from architects who had experience of five years or from consulting engineers.” (3)
I want to add these words because otherwise we do not know who would be the person nominated. It may be a party man. There I would say that it should be “from among the architects.” I also want two persons from architects who had experience of five years or from consulting engineers, to be added. It should be more democratic. The Government must not be in majority in the Committee. Therefore, I have suggested these amendments.
PROF. S. NURUL HASAN: I am sorry, I am unable to accept these amendments.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:
“That Clause 3 stand part of the bill”
The motion was adopted.
Clause 3 was added to the Bill,
Clauses 4 to 12 were also added to the Bill.
Clause 13—(Finances of Council)
SHRI RV BADE: I beg to move Page 5,—
after line 42, insert—
“(1A) Part of the fund shall be utilised for payment of unemployment allowance to unemployed architect in accordance with scales to be determined by the Council” (4)
Government is going to have an architects fund. That fund is to be utilised for what? There is no mention about the utilisation of funds. When we see that there is unemployment and architects and civil engineers are unemployed. Government should think of doing something for their daily living also Architects and civil engineers who are unemployed should be provided with some unemployment allowance from this fund. In the Advocates Act, similar provision is likely to be made that those advocates who are not employed or who are disabled will be provided with some money from the advocates fund. Similarly in this case also I want that part of the fund shall be utilised for payment of unemployment allowance to unemployed architects in accordance with the scales to be determined by the Council. I want these words to be added in the clause.
SHRI DP YADAV: We can not accept this amendment.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I shall now put amendment No 4 to the vote of the House.
Amendment No 4 was put and negatived.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is
“That clause 13 stand part of the Bill.”
Clause 13 was adapted to the Bill,
Clauses 14 to 23 were added to the Bill.
Clause 24—(first preparation of register)
SHRI RV BADE: I beg to move
Page 9, after line 32, insert—
“provided that if no application is made within prescribed time and delay is due to satisfactory reasons as may be condoned” (5)
Page 9, line 36,—add at the end,—
“and if the application is rejected the grounds for the rejection shall be given in writing” (6)
After the Advocates Act came into force, in Madhya Pradesh they have made a similar provision. Persons who were not advocates or law graduates were expected to apply for registration within one year or two years so that they might be enrolled as advocates. But some of them had failed to go within the prescribed time and there was no provision for condoning the delay. Later on, they have made an amendment on the lines I have suggested here. On the same lines, I am suggesting an amendment to this Bill also so that if an architect who has worked for five years before coming into force of this Bill fails to apply for registration, if there are satisfactory reasons shown to the council, the period of delay may be condoned. That is my amendment.
SHRI DP YADAV: I am unable to accept the amendment.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I shall now put amends Nos 5 and 6 to the vote of the House.
Amendments Nos 5 and 6 were put and negatived
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is
“That clause 24 stand part of the Bill”,
The motion was adopted
Clause 24 was added to the bill.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have reached the deadline now. But even so, we are about to finish the bill, and so if we take two or three minutes more from the next item, I hope Shri Kartik Oraon will not mind of it.
The question is
“That Clause 25 stand part of the Bill.”
The motion was adopted
Clause 25 was added to the Bill.
Clause 26—(Procedure for Subsequent Registration)
SHRI RV BADE: I beg to move
Page 10, line 41,—after “date” insert “or knowledge” (7)
Since the hon Minister says he is unable to accept my amendments, let me also insist and persist in moving my amendments and having my say on them.
It is possible that the person may be living in a village and there may be no post office in that village, and he may not be aware or have the knowledge of this Bill coming into law. I want to provide for such cases by inserting the word ‘or knowledge’ after the word ‘date’.
14:00 hrs
SHRI DP YADAV: We do not accept it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I shall now put the amendment to vote.
Amendment 7 was put and negatived.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is
“That clause 26 stand part of the bill”
The motion was adopted
Clause 26 was added to the bill.
Clauses 27 to 45, the Schedule, Clause 1 the Enacting Formula and the Title were added to the Bill.
SHRI DP YADAV: I beg to move
“That the Bill be passed”
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question is
“That the Bill be passed”
The motion was adopted
- 1. Moved with the recommendation of the President