Council said comply. Government said no. Court said the council loses.

When a Council Tried to Bypass the Government: The TASA Judgment on Unapproved Regulations

In late 2018, architecture teachers across India received a shock. The Council of Architecture (CoA) had begun enforcing new, stricter standards for their colleges—standards that would affect faculty qualifications, curriculum, and institutional approvals. The problem? The Central Government had explicitly rejected those very standards just months earlier. The Academic Society of Architects (TASA), a registered society representing architecture educators, approached the Madras High Court. The stakes were existential: if the CoA could enforce unapproved regulations, every architecture college in India would be forced to comply with rules that had never passed legal muster.

The Two Letters That Started It All

On 31 October 2018, the CoA issued a communication to all architecture institutions. On 3 December 2018, it followed up with another. Both letters demanded compliance with the “Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017.” Colleges were told to submit online applications for approval and renewal under these new standards. But the 2017 Regulations had never been approved by the Central Government, nor had they been published in the Official Gazette—both mandatory requirements under the Architects Act, 1972.

TASA moved the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the CoA was acting beyond its statutory authority. The old 1983 Regulations, which had been duly approved and gazetted, remained the only legally enforceable standards. The CoA, TASA argued, could not simply replace them by administrative fiat.

What the CoA Argued—and Why It Failed

The Council of Architecture raised several defences. First, it challenged TASA’s locus standi, citing Ranji Thomas v. Union of India (2000 (2) SCC 81) and State of A.P. v. K. Jayaraman (1974 (2) SCC 738) to argue that the petitioner was not an “aggrieved person.” The Court dismissed this quickly: TASA’s members were faculty and heads of architecture institutions directly affected by the new standards. A professional society representing them clearly had standing.

On the merits, the CoA’s core argument was that Section 21 of the Architects Act gave it independent power to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education. That power, the CoA claimed, did not require Central Government approval or Gazette notification. It cited Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007 (3) SCC 184) for the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius—since Section 21 did not mention “regulations,” the CoA argued, the requirement of approval under Section 45 did not apply.

The CoA also relied on Prohibition and Excise Supdt. v. Toddy Tappers Co-op. Society (2003 (12) SCC 738) to argue that non-notification does not necessarily invalidate guidelines, and State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia (1991 (4) SCC 243) to claim that even if the wrong provision was cited, the action could still be valid.

The Central Government’s Surprising Intervention

The Union of India, through the Ministry of Human Resource Development, filed a counter-affidavit that effectively torpedoed the CoA’s case. The Ministry confirmed that the CoA had submitted the 2017 Regulations for approval in October 2017. The Central Government had explicitly rejected the proposal. Despite this, the CoA went ahead and started enforcing the unapproved standards.

This was not a case of bureaucratic delay or oversight. The government had said no. The CoA had ignored that no.

The Statutory Scheme: Section 21 vs. Section 45

The heart of the dispute was the relationship between two provisions of the Architects Act, 1972.

Section 21 states: “The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of architectural education required for granting recognised qualifications by colleges or institutions in India.”

Section 45 gives the Council the power to make regulations, but with a crucial condition: regulations must be approved by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette. Section 45(2) specifically lists matters on which regulations can be made, including (e) standards of architectural education, (g) conditions for granting recognition, (h) qualifications for registration, (i) fees, and (j) any other matter required by the Act.

The CoA argued that Section 21 was a standalone power—it could “prescribe” standards without going through the regulation-making process of Section 45. The Court rejected this reading entirely.

Why the Court Said No

Justice R. Subbiah, writing for the Division Bench, held that Section 21 is an enabling provision that must be read harmoniously with Section 45. The power to “prescribe” minimum standards under Section 21 is not a power to make binding, enforceable regulations. That power lies only under Section 45, with its mandatory safeguards of Central Government approval and Gazette notification.

The Court relied heavily on Council of Architecture v. Mala Mukherjee (AIR 2015 Calcutta 360), which had already held that Section 21 cannot be read in isolation. The Calcutta High Court had ruled that executive powers under Section 21 can support but cannot supplant the statutory scheme. The Madras High Court followed this reasoning.

The Court also noted a critical practical point: the 1983 Regulations had been framed under Section 45, approved by the Central Government, and published in the Gazette. They were the only legally operative standards. The 2017 Regulations, having never gone through this process, had no statutory force whatsoever.

THE PLAY: If a statutory body claims to enforce new standards, check whether those standards were approved by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette. Without both, the standards are legally unenforceable—no matter how many communications the body issues.

The Order: Quashed and Directed

The Court quashed the impugned communications dated 31 October 2018 and 3 December 2018 “insofar as they seek to implement and enforce the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 without Central Government approval and Gazette publication.” It directed the CoA to accept online applications for approval and renewal only under the existing 1983 Regulations.

The message was clear: a statutory body cannot bypass the law by issuing administrative letters. If the CoA wanted new standards, it had to go back to the Central Government, get approval, and publish the regulations in the Gazette. Anything less was illegal.

What This Means for Practitioners

For advocates advising statutory bodies, this judgment is a reminder that delegated legislation has strict procedural requirements. The power to “prescribe” or “determine” standards is not the same as the power to make binding regulations. If the parent statute requires Central Government approval and Gazette notification, those steps are mandatory—not optional.

For CFOs and founders of educational institutions, the takeaway is practical: always verify the legal basis of any compliance requirement. If a regulatory body demands compliance with standards that have not been formally approved and published, you may have grounds to challenge that demand. The 1983 Regulations remained in force for years after the CoA tried to replace them—because the replacement was never legally valid.

For architecture teachers and institutional heads, the judgment offers immediate relief. Your qualifications and your institution’s approvals cannot be judged against standards that have no legal existence. The CoA must accept applications under the 1983 Regulations until it follows the proper procedure for new ones.

The Bottom Line

When the Council of Architecture tried to enforce unapproved 2017 Regulations, the Madras High Court stopped it cold: a statutory body cannot create binding rules by administrative letters—only by following the approval and notification process the law requires.