A draft for the Professional Engineers’ Bill 2025 is currently under consideration, put out by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The proposed bill aims to establish the Indian Professional Engineers’ Council (IEPC), a statutory body that would register and regulate “Professional Engineers” across India.
Several architects and architectural bodies have criticised the draft, arguing that it undermines the established role of architects, town planners, and urban designers. Members of the Indian Institute of Architects – North Chapter (IIA-NC) have raised objections about its problematic implications and potential conflicts with existing statutory bodies like the Council of Architecture (CoA), extending to the already established professions like architecture.
The engineering profession already has an operational body, the Institution of Engineers, India (IEI), which was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1935. Many architects suggest that creating IEPC as a new statutory body would be “a counter and confuse matters”. Professor R. Ramaraju offers a different perspective: “Though IEI exists, the engineering profession needs statutory recognition and governance.”
Along with this, the bill’s broad definitions for “Practice” and “Professional Engineering Practice” have raised concerns about potential infringement on multiple established professions, including architecture. IIA-NC executive members describe this definitional overlap as “encompassing all professions beyond the realms of Engineers training”, “restricting the rights to practice one’s profession”, and “contradicting the fair market practice norms“. The use of the term “Technologist” has also prompted questions, as technology spans many fields beyond engineering.
Architects have also raised objections against the proposed licensing framework. The provision would lead to a system where a single body (the proposed IPEC) exercises excessive control through licensing. Executive Committee members of IIA-NC comment on the same, calling this approach “against fair market practices,” which will “impact many professionals”.
Professor Ramaraju, in his analysis of the draft, also points to the educational differences between the profession, specifically civil engineering. Through comparative analysis of undergraduate curricula for architecture and civil engineering programs (B.E. (Civil) at Anna University and B.Tech. (Civil) at IIT Kharagpur from 2019), he documented substantial differences in course content and training emphasis.
“Engineering is an analytical field purely based on scientific principles, and not a creative field as is the case with architecture,” notes Professor Ramaraju. He adds that “the field has diversified a lot, and we have many engineering divisions. Having a single body to govern all these divisions of engineering is not an appropriate decision in the long run.”
The National Education Policy 2020 established distinct bodies for different professional purposes, positioning bodies like the CoA as “Professional Standard Setting Bodies” (PSSB) that set professional standards but don’t directly regulate higher education. IIA-NC members suggest that the draft PE Bill contradicts this framework by proposing extensive practice regulation powers for IEPC, which would create a conflict between how these professional bodies are meant to operate within India’s educational and professional landscape.
Path Foward
While welcoming the Professional Engineer’s Bill in principle, Professor Ramaraju states that “it should not be detrimental to other professions.”
IIA-NC executive committee members suggest: “A more focused approach, which does not infringe upon other professions, would better serve both the engineering community and the public interest.
The comments within the draft by IIA-NC members suggest a need to focus on engineering education rather than broad practice regulation, the refinement of the definitions to avoid encroachment on other related professions, and a more focused approach that acknowledges the distinct contributions of various professions.
While architects continue raising their concerns, we are still waiting for the requested comments from the CoA and IIA.
Feature Image – Background Photograph © Wikimedia Commons
