The Engineer's Bill- The Journey Continues

This piece is in continuation with my earlier blog titled "Unfinished Journey of Engineers Bill," posted earlier. https://www.manojmittal.in/post/unfinished-journey-of-engineer-s-bill In that blog, I tried to highlight the importance of legislation and traced its 70 years of unfinished journey. I also mentioned the Ministry of Education's response dated 25th November 2021, which stated that engineer’s bill would only be considered once the National Higher Education Commission (NHEC), and National Higher Education Regulatory Commission (NHERC) were established under NEP 2020.

Reply from MoE dated 25.11.2021 (2).pdf

Download PDF • 828KB

However, recent developments have taken an unexpected turn. The All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) invited stakeholders for discussions on a draft bill they had prepared. Surprisingly, the invitation letter was issued on 12th February 2025, calling for a meeting the very next day, 13th February—allowing just a single day's notice.

Circular Professional Engineers Bill.pdf

Download PDF • 794KB

The meeting saw minimal participation, with only 12-15 attendees, and even fewer among those who were formally invited. During the discussions, AICTE was requested to share a copy of the draft bill to enable a thorough review and feedback. They promised to provide it via email the following day; however, the draft was eventually sent almost a month later. At that time, stakeholders were asked to submit their comments within an unreasonably short seven-day window. Upon further appeals, AICTE extended the deadline by a few more days, with the final submission date set as 10th April. Nevertheless, the additional time was insufficient for meaningful deliberation, debate, and feedback on such a significant legislative proposal. This raises fundamental questions about whether this approach aligns with sound policymaking practices. Ideally, such a draft bill should undergo widespread debates and discussions across various forums throughout India, engaging diverse stakeholders. This would ensure the inclusion of well-considered and constructive inputs for refining the bill.

Interestingly, this time there was a lack of enthusiasm among the engineering community regarding this bill. It appears many have lost hope, and engineers outside of the civil engineering domain have shown limited interest in such legislation. Furthermore, the draft itself is poorly structured and deeply flawed. Despite these challenges, various professional associations reviewed the draft and forwarded their comments within the allotted time. They also requested the formation of a committee comprising professionals to deliberate on these comments and finalize the draft before submitting it to the Ministry of Education. As of now, I remain uncertain about AICTE's approach. Will the Ministry accept and advance the bill, or is it destined to share the same fate as previous proposals? Only time will reveal the outcome.

Professional Engineerinng Bill 2025 20.03.25.pdf

Download PDF • 638KB

This issue holds a special place in my heart, as I have been actively involved in it for the past three decades alongside eminent personalities like the late Mr. Mahendra Raj. My views on the current draft bill are as follows:

While the preamble talks about ensuring the competence and accountability of engineers as the primary objectives of the Engineers Bill, it fails to address several critical aspects. It does not elaborate on the council’s scope for creating a conducive ecosystem for professional practice or preventing non-engineers from offering engineering services. Nor does it mention the legal rights of professional engineers. The preamble should be clear, concise, and inclusive of key elements. The present version is repetitive, lacks focus, and misses significant points, making it tedious to read and comprehend.

A comprehensive engineer's bill encompassing all disciplines is a good idea. However, considering the large number of engineers, the apparent lack of interest among non-civil engineers, and the critical role civil engineers play in ensuring public safety and well-being, a separate Professional Civil Engineers Act may be a practical alternative. It is important to note that I have no objections to a comprehensive engineering bill. Nonetheless, civil engineering possesses unique characteristics and challenges. Other engineering disciplines often perceive limited value in such a bill, with some regarding it as unnecessary. Yet, numerous professional bodies hold a contrasting viewpoint. The proposed AICTE draft bill, while covering all engineering disciplines, appears to place significant emphasis on civil engineering, both in tone and focus. This perceived bias could risk alienating non-civil engineers, whose stance on the bill remains uncertain.

The concept of categorizing engineers has always baffled me. In my view, a competent engineer is simply that—competent. Categorization and grading are inherently arbitrary and counterproductive. The draft proposes grading, which I believe should be excluded. The Indian Professional Engineers Council (IPEC) should solely grant the title of Professional Engineer based on predetermined criteria. Employers or service seekers can define specific requirements for roles as needed. It is impractical and unnecessary for the council to undertake this for the numerous disciplines and varying demands of the profession.

I am also perplexed by the inclusion of the Washington Accord and provisions for foreign engineers in the bill. Is the government contemplating registering non-Indian engineers? I believe IPEC should register only Indian professional engineers. Foreign engineers will naturally be governed by international agreements like the Washington Accord or bilateral arrangements.

The draft envisions a 12-member Board of Governors (BOG), all appointed by the Ministry, to oversee IPEC. It is dominated by bureaucrats and academics, with no representation from professional bodies. This is fundamentally flawed. All BOG members should either be Professional Engineers or possess qualifications and experience equivalent to those outlined in the bill for professional engineers. The draft also proposes a 27-member council with representatives from academic institutions, industry bodies, ministries, states, and professional associations. Unfortunately, professional associations are minimally represented, while ministry appointees dominate. This imbalance must be corrected to ensure effective governance. Professional associations should have a greater share of representation, and the involvement of academics and government should be minimal. Moreover, the council chairperson must be a highly accomplished Professional Engineer. Fundamentally, the council should be a body by engineers, for engineers. The present structure is flawed and demands thorough deliberation and revision. It is not a rocket science, but AICTE/Government need to have open mind.

The draft also introduces the concept of Licensed Member Organizations (LMOs)—selected professional associations tasked with assessing and nominating engineers for registration. While this may be the only practical solution given the estimated one crore engineers to be registered, the task of managing and monitoring LMOs will be monumental. LMOs could also have competing interests, raising doubts about their success. Compounding this is the draft's mention of a separate body within IPEC to design and conduct examinations in two modules: Module 1 (common to all) and Module 2 (discipline-specific). This creates confusion about the role of LMOs. Is provision of LMOs is only temporary to begin with? Initial registration should be for five years, with mandatory renewal every five years, linked to Continuous Professional Development (CPD). The CPD framework, along with assessment and monitoring mechanisms, can be developed by IPEC and implemented through LMOs. However, the draft lacks any mention of CPD or renewal, which is a significant oversight.

Another pressing concern among engineers is the criteria for registration as Professional Engineers. The draft is vague, creating anxiety among engineers—fresh graduates, mid-career professionals, and seniors alike. It is unwise to leave them speculating. These criteria should be explicitly stated in the bill, rather than deferred for later regulation by the council. The draft proposes including only engineers with 25 years of experience in the first register, which would greatly limit the number of registered Professional Engineers. I question the origin of this arbitrary figure. In my view all practicing engineers (employed/self-employed) with 5 years of professional experience at the time of the act's enactment should be registered, with subsequent registrations requiring a recognized bachelor’s degree and at least five years of experience under a registered Professional Engineer, alongside passing the two-module examination. Module 1- general & Module 2 domains specific. Additionally, the act should stipulate that non-professional engineers will be prohibited from practicing engineering five years post-enactment, ensuring a smooth transition. The bill must not jeopardize the livelihoods of engineers nationwide. Socioeconomic diversity and the country's vastness must be carefully considered in finalizing the bill. Moreover, engineers across all sectors—government, private, or self-employed—should be treated equally for registration. This arrangement may not be the perfect one, but it is very practical, rationale and I hope would be acceptable to the fraternity. This system will become fully stable after 5 years. I am in no way suggesting compromising on competence but trying to be more practical. This 5 year is also arbitrary which may be debated and decided. The bill must also unequivocally state that engineers registered with IPEC will not require additional registration with any other government or private bodies. This would significantly boost engineering consultancy and align with the government’s ease-of-business initiatives.

In real-world scenarios, overlap often exists between engineering disciplines and allied fields. A rigid compartmentalized approach is impractical for fast-paced projects and can lead to disputes, conflicts, and dissatisfaction. The bill must include mechanisms to resolve overlaps between disciplines and fields such as civil engineering and architecture. For instance, many civil engineers perform activities also rendered by architects—a practice upheld by multiple court rulings, including the apex court. IPEC should incorporate conceptualizing, planning, and project coordination/management within the scope of engineering.

I truly hope this marks the final draft and that the initiative achieves the success it deserves. It is imperative for AICTE to consider the feedback from all stakeholders in the right spirit. To ensure thorough deliberation, a broad-based stakeholders' committee should be constituted to review the inputs and finalize the draft. If approached with transparency and earnestness, this initiative has the potential to revolutionize the engineering profession in India. With great hope and optimism, I sign off.

[MANOJ MITTAL, NOIDA, APRIL 15,2025]

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this writeup are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any affiliated organizations.