Architectural practice requires registration under the Architects Act, and unregistered persons cannot hold themselves out as architects.

Practice as an architect under the Architects Act, 1972 is not open to unregistered persons. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in accepting the contention that registration is unnecessary, and clarified that the Act does not permit anyone to practise as an architect without registration. The appellant's contention was rejected, and the position that architectural practice is confined to registered architects was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether practice as an architect is confined only to persons registered under the Architects Act, 1972.

Analysis: The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. It clarified that the High Court erred in rejecting the contention that practice under the Architects Act, 1972 is not restricted only to registered architects, and it is not correct to say that anyone may practise as an architect without registration under the Act.

Conclusion: The contention of the appellant was rejected, and it was affirmed that practice as an architect is not open to unregistered persons.

---