The Karnataka civil engineers Bill, its pathway
The goal of the Karnataka Professional Civil Engineers Bill, that was passed recently, to improve professionalisation and construction standards, is laudable. However, the route it recommends, which mandates only certified civil engineers to offer engineering designs, is bound to create confusion, become unnecessarily restrictive, turn impractical and remain out of sync with best practices.
The brick and mortar
The Bill establishes four key things. First, it defines a civil engineer, lists engineering designs, imposes restrictions on those who can offer engineering design services, and, finally, instructs how to ensure this.
Anyone with a diploma or a degree in a civil engineering discipline in India or abroad can qualify as a civil engineer. However, they must register with the Karnataka Council of Professional Civil Engineers within one year from the date of commencement of the Act. In addition, they should obtain a certificate to become a ‘professional civil engineer’ in Karnataka. For this, those with degrees need one year of experience, while those with diplomas require two years of experience. Only professional civil engineers can offer engineering designs, which includes ‘civil, structural, geotechnical, and environmental engineering designs and drawings’. It also includes ‘conceptual plans, master plans, layout plans, and other designs and drawings for buildings and infrastructure’.
The Bill insists that any building that is more than 50 square metres in plinth area or taller than the ground floor or that is not built with loadbearing masonry structure (meaning, buildings with columns and beams, and others) or a group housing project with more than three buildings must be supervised or executed or certified only by professional civil engineers. Strict gatekeeping is imposed by instructing government authorities not to permit construction unless registered professional civil engineers certify designs and drawings.
These provisions must be rethought for three reasons. First, despite the overlaps between professional services in the building industry, the Bill ,unmindfully and restrictively, defines engineering designs. This is baffling since the Supreme Court of India, pointing out difficulties in a comparable situation involving architects, has refused to exclude related professionals from offering overlapping services.
In 2020, while settling architects’ claim that their professional Act prohibits nonarchitects from offering architectural services, the Court pointed out that services, including site design, structural design, structural integration of services, incorporation of mechanical systems and inspection of construction, are carried out concertedly by a host of related professionals. Hence, to favour one group by imposing ‘absolute prohibition’ on others would lead to
‘considerable confusion’. It wisely observed that ‘varied professions form essential cogs in the overall machinery of construction’ and one cannot take a hard and exclusionary regulatory view.
It is probably for these reasons that the Gujarat Professional Civil Engineers Act, 2006, which is similar, is restrained in its scope. It limits registered professional civil engineers only to certify engineering designs, which it does not define. Even this limited version may not withstand a legal challenge. Also, on the ground, anecdotally, the regulations are more honoured in the breach.
Global practices
Second, many countries are cautious about regulations restricting competition, reinforcing monopoly tendencies, raising prices, and working against user interest. Hence, they support the selfregulation of professions. Recalling a study on engineering licensing and professional practice across several countries would also be worthwhile. It pointed out that “there is no hard evidence that tight engineering licensure provides economic gains to societies”. Also, large firms that employ many engineers and architects could easily countervail these provisions, making them difficult to implement.
Third, many professional councils across the world, aware of these complexities, have not tried to ring fence their services. Instead, they take the alternative and effective route of protecting titles such as ‘chartered engineer or architect’ by establishing a rigorous process that demands high academic standards and experience.
The councils also mandate additional peer interviews or examinations as nonnegotiable requirements. Through this, they let users know that professional titles are not offered lightly, and only the competent ones earn them. Users, convinced by the credibility of the collective, voluntarily seek certified professionals.
For example, the Engineering Council in the United Kingdom clarifies that there are no restrictions on practising as an engineer. However, it protects titles offered to the qualified and those who pass professional reviews. Only a limited number of highrisk constructions, such as reservoir design and road tunnel safety regulations, are reserved for licensed persons. The same goes for the Architects Registration Board in the U.K. In comparison, the Karnataka Bill seeks an absolute protection of services and falls short of licensing requirements. There are no examinations and fewer experience requirements in the Bill. It would serve better to tighten the process leading to certification.
The question of which professional is more competent to offer a particular service will continue to arise regularly. As was decided in one of the cases involving the architectengineer dispute in the signing of drawings for permits in Washington State, U.S., there cannot be a brightline rule, and divisions are impossible in a ‘general sense’. It must be decided on an eventtoevent basis, locally and based on education, experience, and special knowledge. What would be even better is to resist the demand for professional turfs to control supply. An effective solution would be to influence the demand side by continuously demonstrating the usefulness of professionals and certification.
The Karnataka Professional Civil Engineers Bill pushes a brightline rule and flounders
Kareem had argued that
SCs and STs are unequal, which was affirmed by the judgment. The N.M. Thomas judgment was used by the judges in the separate reservation for ST judgment.
V. Karunakaran,