The love of Indians for all things foreign is well known – and most real estate developers know it and take advantage of this fact. That is why many of them have been advertising their residential projects as being designed by architects of international repute, giving buyers the impression, thereby, that foreign collaborations mean apartments of international standards and better value.

However, by doing so, real estate developers could be violating a legal provision, ie, Section 37 of The Architects Act, 1972, which prohibits a foreign architect from working in India without the permission of the Central government.

That’s not all, in some cases, architects from abroad are emailing their designs to builders which are endorsed and signed off by their Indian counterparts who are then represented as actual designers of the project to get approvals from development authorities. In other cases, while Indian architects finalise project designs for a builder, foreign architects allow use of their brand (for a hefty payment) for advertising the project as one of international standards.

Witnessing many cases, the  Council of Architecture (CoA), the regulatory body for architects in India, recently published a pubic notice in leading newspapers, which said “The CoA is receiving complaints regarding the violation of the (architects) Act by foreign architects/consulting firms/Indian architects/real estate developers and others by hiring foreign architects to render architectural services without following due procedure prescribed under proviso (b) section 37 (1) of the Architects Act, 1972.” It adds: “It is also noticed that Indian Architects (as defined under the Act) have been working as local /signing/ liaison architects for projects which have been or are being designed by foreign architects without ensuring compliance of the provisions of the Act.”

...

Tata Housing, campaigning for its residential project Myst, claims it has been “designed by renowned architect Llewelyn Yeang.” When asked if the company had sought the Central government’s permission to get the professional services a foreign architect, a spokesperson said: “Llewelyn Yeang has only provided guidelines for the master plan; whereas we work with CPK, a reputed Indian architectural firm and all architectural services as defined in the 1972 Architects Act by Council of Architecture India were undertaken by them.”

Delhi-based veteran architect Ashok Goel says he finds it “strange that Tata Housing is not using the name of CPK in its advertisements because it’s an Indian firm. On the other hand, a Western company which has just done the master planning, as claimed by the company, has been given a lot of importance.” 

37 Prohibition against use of title.-

(1) After the expiry of one year from the date appointed under sub-section (2) of section 24, no person other than a registered architect, or a firm of architects shall use the title and style of architect: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to-

(a) practice of the profession of an architect by a person designated as a "landscape architect" or "naval architect";

(b) a person who, carrying on the profession of an architect in any country outside India, undertakes the function as a consultant or designer in India for a specific project with the prior permission of the Central Government.

(i) "landscape architect" means a person who deals with the design of open spaces relating to plants trees and landscape;

(ii) "naval architect" means an architect who deals with design and construction of ships.

(2) If any person contravenes the provision s of sub-section (1), he shall be punishable on first conviction with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or with both.