Architects not interested in going to the jail should wake up and respond to CoA’s invitation ASAP

My love for the profession of architecture has almost passed through all the Kubler-Ross Stages of Dying and Subsequent Models of Grief that are listed as denial, anger, bargaining, depression and the last that I am in, acceptance.

But time and again, I do get a masochistic pangs of wanting to check what is the latest act of “reinvention” by architects’ guardian and esteemed regulator of the grand profession, the Council of Architecture, India, and end up back on my writing desk in bargain phase.

Here I am, back again, as I can imagine very many nasty things that Indian architects can survive (such as Indian clients, who are unaware of a concept called design fees) but am not sure they are made of the material that can survive an Indian Jail.

At the onset, I am happy to note that now architects are blessed with a “Manual of Architectural Practise” (sic) and happier to note that, in circa 2023 when even Playboy has decided to stop printing, this five volume masterpiece is apparently available ONLY in physical form (whereby saving me a lot of pain of reading what could be (based on my past experience) multiple hara-kiri attempts).

But time and again, being an erstwhile member of the great profession, I do end up getting WhatsApp forwards, and the one that has scared me out of my wits is” Architectural Education Way ahead, in pursuit of Education Reforms – Interim Report released by the Council – reg.’ ” dated 9/1/2023.

As architects really do things artistically, it is a graphically well composed document and just as verbose as architects love to get, so I am almost certain that no architect worth his/her coffee-grains would have bothered to read it in its entirety. But, as such a luxury is not available to a student of law, I am was forced to wade through it, till my toe (most predictably) stubbed up-on the same word, i.e., “engineering” that hurts me every time I read any document released by CoA.

As the document is outlining the what architects are expected to learn, its core is “To understand Architecture as a language, knowledge in the following subjects is to be acquired by the student”.

As I started reading it, I was almost delighted as reading the first twelve words, it felt as if the document mostly referred to the subjects that are connected only to human-building interaction (and not technology-building interaction), but cometh the thirteenth word and I saw the same harbinger of all disasters that CoA has loved to court.
If I quote it verbatim, it defines “1. Architectural Design: To create architectural designs that satisfy aesthetic, functional and TECHNICAL (capitalization by me) requirements creating liveable habitat imbued (if you are not related to Shashi Tharoorji, you may Google the word as I did) with an understanding of social responsibility.”

The reading thereafter wasn’t all downhill; but in no time, I found “17. Structural Systems”, “18. Building Techniques” and it kept getting worse as we hit “30. Comprehensive Design” where architects are back to not just treading but stomping on the toes of engineers.

I really find it cute (for the want of a better word) that an attempt is made to distinguish between different subjects by using “Ability to” and “Understanding of”, as the core competence expected from architects is listed with “ability to” while engineering subjects like “17. Structural Systems” are drafted with “Understanding of”.

Let me not bore you (if you are an architect) with technicalities of law, but instead come to the point about how ratifying this document can get you arrested and even get jailed.

If the above document is read by a court of law that is trying a case where a building has collapsed due to some engineering failure leading to a death, what will happen?

The most probable outcome would be that if you are the architect of the building, you will be arrested and may even be jailed.

If you make a light reading of the relevant (for architects, as buildings/construction failures or defects or acts of negligence linked with construction processes do lead to death of humans) IPC section 304, it has two parts.

Section 304 (Part I) of IPC that awards you a punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and a fine is applicable when you want to kill someone and that person dies and hence not of great concern for you as an architect (provided you are not going to be diabolical and design to kill), but what happens when someone ends up dying due to a building collapse or defect?

This is when Section 304 (Part II) of IPC comes into play where a accused can be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years or a fine or with both ten years imprisonment and a fine.

The jurisprudence used in differentiating between application of Part I and II is based on having “knowledge” and “intention”. The less stringent Part II comes into play when there is no intention but there is a knowledge that this act can lead to death, for example not checking carefully if enough reinforcement bars are there in a beam or not.

So, if architects have “understanding of” engineering (the main cause of building accidents), it means that he/she “knows” that a given engineering fault can lead to collapse and also death, and hence it is solemn duty of a court of law to slap 304 (Part II) and get the architect at least arrested at the onset and verify if he/she deserves to be jailed or not.

(If you think that this is for the future architects trained under the above cited curriculum and you can escape using it as a legal loophole, let me point out that this is just one more formal admission of the same stand that can be seen repeated everywhere in all the CoA documents).

If you are an architect, please ask yourself a simple question.

How often you are given a project because you have “understanding of” engineering?

In case of almost all architects, the professional success is driven only by how good is the building for “human use” and how “good it looks”. No client cares how good is your “understating of” engineering involved in construction or function of the building.

When your practice doesn’t really depend on having “understanding of” engineering, is it really worth claiming it when it can actually earn you an arrest and even a jail term in a worst-case scenario?

If you don’t think it is worth the risk, about time you wake up and respond to the open invitation given by CoA in the above cited letter.

END OF ARTICLE