The First Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh, made the observation while disposing of petitions — including a public interest litigation — that sought to restrain authorities from demanding any undertaking from architects with regard to structural sufficiency.

It is stated that the forms requiring an undertaking from architects, to certify structural stability, and supervise and issue completion certificates, have been introduced in the wake of the collapse of a multi-storeyed building in Moulivakkam in June 2014. The accident claimed more than 60 lives.

The Indian Institute of Architects and W. Anand, an architect, said the forms seek to club the role of a structural engineer and an architect, making them composite. Thus, a burden is cast on architects with consequences not envisaged in their role.

The Bench observed that the petitions are more out of apprehension rather than facts. As a general proposition, it does not accept the plea of the constrained nature of the role of an architect. The Council of Architecture itself said an architect should play a wide role.