It’s a designer battle, architect in spot over ad

Although he refused to be drawn into the specifics of Contractor’s case, the president of the council, P R Mehta, cited the precedent of a leading architect of Malaysia being suspended by its council on the charge of projecting himself in an advertisement.

The petitioner, Atul Gupta, president of Uttar Pradesh Architects Association, alleged that Contractor was ‘‘consciously advertising’’ his work, skills and philosophy as an architect. It also urged the council to intervene immediately because of ‘‘the advertising advantage’’ accruing to Contractor with every telecast over other practising architects.

In his response on January 3, Contractor quoted the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 to assert that ‘‘there has been no professional misconduct on my part and the complaint filed against me is misconceived and not justified.’’

Contractor’s main defence is that the advertisement is permissible because it is of Cera Sanitaryware and not, as alleged in the complaint, of himself or his architectural work or his design philosophy.

The regulation cited by Contractor forbids an architect to advertise ‘‘his professional service’’ but allows him to lend his name to advertisements of his projects as well as advertisements of ‘‘suppliers or manufacturers of materials used in a building he has designed.’’

The two kinds of advertisements in which an architect’s name can appear are, however, subject to the condition that ‘‘he does not accept any consideration for its use.’’ Contractor, therefore, clarified that he did not receive any fee for the advertisement.

But, wittingly or not, Contractor made one signficant admission: Although the advertisement is of sanitaryware, he is not shown to be endorsing that or any material. He has instead stated, by his own admission, ‘‘some of the main principles guiding my work as an architect.’’

The complainant, Atul Gupta, sees Contractor’s statement as ‘‘an admission of self projection.’’ Contacted by The Sunday Express, Gupta said: ‘‘The mileage Contractor got from the ad is worth more than any fee he could have been paid for it. An architect can’t project himself, whether he takes money for it or not.’’

Gupta believes the advertisement will have ‘‘a detrimental effect on the profession’s ethics’’ as, by positioning himself as the people’s architect, Contractor is ‘‘playing with the law’s loose ends to put himself at an advantage over other architects.’’ Contractor declined to discuss the issue. ‘‘It’s not right to comment on a matter pending before the council,’’ he said.

The council is yet to examine the complaint against Contractor and his response. That will happen only when the council’s full house, comprising 50 members, meets in the middle of the year.

If the council feels that a prima facie case is made out, it will refer the matter to a disciplinary committee. And if the disciplinary committee hold him guilty, the committee is empowered to impose any of the prescribed penalties, which include suspension of the licence to practice.

The president of the council, Mehta, said that the council has ‘‘a record of taking seriously all complaints of misconduct because we are entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the clean image of the profession.’’