NAMSE.ORG
We, concerned senior eminent and practicing professional engineers who qualified from BITS Pilani, an Institution of Eminence, have come together online through and as the NAMSE.ORG (National Association of Multi-Specialty Engineers) digital platform specifically to express our strong objections to the Draft Professional Engineers Bill 2025.
We say this Bill, in its current form, undermines the interests of Indian engineers and compromises national engineering sovereignty and national security. We also object that this draft bill was not widely circulated or publicized and we only came to know about it 2 or 3 days ago, whereas the AICTE, by one Dr. Amit Dutta, had apparently strangely circulated and invited only a few specific (mostly unknown) pliable organizations as stakeholders to an online meeting on 12th February 2025 and curiously excluded the actual professional practicing engineers such as ourselves.
Accordingly, we the deliberately excluded persons, are submitting our brief initial response, which is not a para-wise response and for which we reserve the right to file after consultation with our membership due to shortage of time granted (only 6 days). We also request specific consideration, independently and without prejudice to each other, of our objection grounds as set out below along with grant of opportunity of personal hearing.
NB: Since this is a public process in accordance with NATIONAL PRE-LEGISLATIVE CONSULTATION POLICY, we would appreciate being provided immediately with copies (in digital format) of all responses received, so that we may also support / object to the comments of other stake-holders also, as is the well settled practice followed generally.
At the outset, we request that the time for filing comments be again extended further for wider participation by practicing engineers beyond the usual groups of vested interest professional associations who mostly make money by offering dubious education courses and unregulated diplomas / memberships / fellowships.
Because, the Bill's reliance on the Washington Accord of 2014 as its basis is a recipe for disaster. By recognizing foreign qualifications and certifications, we are essentially opening the floodgates to foreign engineers and consultancies, allowing them to dominate the Indian engineering sector. This will lead to a loss of control over our nation's engineering sector, compromising national security and economic interests. The suspicious haste in which this obnoxious bill is being rushed through conveys that India’s engineers are being sacrificed on the altar of India’s trade negotiations with the United States of America, which is deplorable.
Because, the committee framing the Act and the Councils should comprise many more experienced engineers and technologists with hands-on experience. The current composition is heavily biased towards bureaucrats and academics, who lack the practical knowledge and expertise and experience to shape or regulate India's engineering sector.
Because the Bill's provisions should align with other professions' regulatory frameworks, such as extant for architecture, law and medicine etc. This will ensure consistency and coherence in regulatory frameworks, preventing confusion and overlapping jurisdictions to provide maximum autonomy for professional engineers to regulate themselves free from excessive government control which this draft bill is rife and replete with. The autonomy granted to engineers should in no way be inferior to that enjoyed by advocates, and this bill is sorely deficient in that respect and liable to be challenged. The discrepancies between the draft bill and, say, the Advocates Act 1961 are glaring and call into question the methodology followed to draft such legislation which patently discriminates against India’s engineers qua India’s advocates.
Because the draft Bill fails to address AI's role in engineering, a critical oversight in today's technologically driven landscape. AI is transforming the engineering sector, and our regulatory framework must keep pace with these changes.
Because, the 25 year cutoff period specified in the draft bill for first registration is arbitrary and irrational. Instead we say all graduate engineers who passed a 4-year or greater full-time residential program in Engineering (ie. with a B.E. degree or a BSc(Engg) degree of an Indian University) on or before the date of the Washington Accord in 2014 should be granted automatic registration in the First Register of Professional Engineers. This will recognize their existing expertise and experience, ensuring that they are not unfairly disadvantaged by the new regulatory framework. Engineers employed by Government in non-engineering roles must be excluded from this first registration facility. We say that persons with B.Tech degrees are not Engineers and should not be automatically included in the First register.
Because non-registered individuals should be prohibited from practicing engineering. This will ensure public safety and maintain professional standards, preventing unqualified individuals from compromising the integrity of the engineering profession.
Because the draft Bill neglects to provide adequate legal protection for engineers. Unlike lawyers and doctors, engineers are exposed to significant risks and liabilities, and our regulatory framework must provide adequate protection and support to them.
Because it is necessary that a one-time, single-point registration system, state-wise, recognized throughout India is implemented by law to practice the noble and respected profession of engineering. This will eliminate redundant bureaucracy and facilitate ease of practice, ensuring that engineers can focus on their work without unnecessary regulatory hurdles.
Because absolute clarity is needed regarding the roles of AICTE and UGC, now and in the future. These organizations have overlapping jurisdictions, and their roles must be clearly defined to prevent confusion and overlapping regulations. Ideally they must be wound down under National Education Policy as they have utterly failed to protect Indian engineers till date and have both systematically ensured that legislation covering professional engineers was never enacted since 1970s (Barve Committee report) till date simply to benefit the half baked so-called associate “engineers” churned out by IEI and the like who are at the roots of corruption in India.
Because Regulation and education should rest with practicing engineers, free from government interference, similar to that in the legal profession. This will ensure professional autonomy and expertise-driven decision-making, allowing engineers to drive innovation and growth. The motto of practising engineers must always be “Of the Engineers, By the Engineers, For the Engineers”
Accordingly, we strongly object to the Constitution of the IPEC. We say that IPEC must be for the engineers by the engineers and to be administered by the engineers. In view of this Constitution of IPEC needs radical overhaul. It must be ensured that virtually all members should be Professional Engineers. Chairperson especially should be professional Engineer (and not a bureaucrat). The list of associations from which membership is drawn must be expanded to every LMO.
Regarding roles of LMOs: As per this draft, the IPEC will select and appoint LMO (Licenced Member Organisations) to assess and nominate engineers for registration as Professional Engineer as per the requirement set by IPEC. In view of very large number of engineers to be registered it will be a herculean task for IPEC. Further it is mentioned that a body shall be created to design and formulate examination modules- for each discipline. If such a body is to be created than what is the role of LMOs, this entire construct is dubious and impractical and needs a rethink.
Because annual fees should be capped at ?1,000. This will prevent exploitation by certain profiteering professional associations that prioritize profits over public interests, and to so ensure that engineers are not unfairly burdened by excessive fees and tempted to recover through underhand means.
Because the Registration of Engineers and curriculum development roles should be well separated but exclusively with professional engineers. This will go towards ensuring that each function is performed effectively and without conflict of interest, preventing the concentration of power and thereby ensuring accountability.
Because the Act should also regulate R&D institutions related to engineering works. This will ensure that research and development align with professional standards and public interest, preventing the misuse of research and development for personal or commercial gain.
Because Professional Engineers should be empowered to halt implementation of designs with deviations. This will ensure accountability and safety, preventing the implementation of faulty or defective designs that compromise public safety. There must also be a whistleblowers protection in the Act with effective criminal and civil deterrents. We have the example of so many engineers who have been murdered for exposing corruption that this provision is essential.
Because the Bill's bias toward civil engineers unfairly discriminates against other engineering disciplines. We advocate for a maximum 15% representation of civil engineers in regulatory bodies and councils, ensuring that all engineering disciplines are fairly represented especially qua the other Core Engineering disciplines like Chemical Engg, Mechanical Engg, Metallurgy, Electrical and Electronics/Communication Engg, Marine Engg, Computer Engineering, Instrumentation and Automation Engg, AeroSpace Engg. etc.
Because unregulated recognition of foreign qualifications may lead to foreign engineers dominating the Indian sector. This will compromise national engineering sovereignty and economic interests, and we must ensure that our regulatory framework prioritizes Indian engineers and their interests. In our experience, private vested interest bodies like Association of Indian Universities lack the competence and integrity to audit and certify equivalences.
Because increased competition, higher costs, and disadvantage to small and independent practicing engineers will result from the recognition of foreign qualifications. We must ensure that our regulatory framework protects the interests of Indian engineers and promotes their growth and development. It must be kept in mind that engineers collectively constitute the largest block of qualified professionals and there is considerable unemployment in the sector.
It appears ex-facie this bill covers all engineers-all disciplines, govt/private engineers, Engineers in employment, Professional practitioners, Retired engineers, teachers, and researchers in its scope. We object to say that a Professional Engineers Act should only be for practicing professional engineers, and the academics and bureaucrats (eg. IAS, IPC and other all-India services etc. must be excluded.
Because the Influence of foreign companies may compromise national engineering sovereignty. We must ensure that our regulatory framework prioritizes Indian companies and their interests, preventing the dominance of foreign companies in our engineering sector.
Because each professional association should draw up its own Code of Ethics, based on a common model code framework, taking into account the unique needs and context of their members. This will ensure that the Code of Ethics is relevant and effective in promoting the interests of Indian engineers.
NB: All bodies under this Act, must be prohibited from accepting donations, charity etc. and such text must not be included in this bill. Including such text is very likely to create biases and compromise integrity and fairness of the bodies, as happened in case of capitation fee institutions with “donations”.
Because, We must uphold the integrity of our premier engineering education systems and professional certifications. The B.E.(Hons) degree from BITS Pilani is the pinnacle of academic excellence in engineering education, and our regulatory framework must ensure to recognize, reward and respects this excellence. In connection therewith it is submitted as follows:-
Because the distinction between the highly reputed B.E.(Hons) degree from BITS Pilani and the ordinary B.Tech degree from government IITs and NITs is a matter of national pride. The B.E.(Hons) degree is a national symbol of academic excellence, emphasizing deep theoretical foundations coupled with extensive industrial practice. In contrast, the B.Tech degree is a more general technology qualification lacking industry relevance. Hence B.Tech degree holder must permitted designation of “Engineer” only after additional examinations and interviews by industry and their practicing engineer peers. It may also be considered that the B.E degrees of BITS Pilani are purely merit based whereas admissions to IITs and NITs are vitiated by Diversity and other outdated reservation norms which have completely devalued the technician degrees of these Institutes.
Because the Associate membership diplomas offered by the Institution of Engineers (India) and IETE etc. are a blight on our nation's engineering education system. These diplomas are often pursued through part-time or correspondence studies, which compromise academic rigor. Furthermore, allegations of cheating in AMIE and IETE exams have thoroughly undermined the credibility of such certificates. We must reject these subpar qualifications and uphold the integrity of our engineering education system by excluding such AMIE or AMIETE holders etc. from the definition of "Engineer".
Because, the Institution of Engineers (India) and the Government of India have been criticized for promoting unrecognized and potentially unconstitutional colonial era relic "Chartered Engineer" descriptors. We must be vigilant against foreign influences and ensure that our engineering certifications are recognized and respected globally.
Because, we forcefully object to any and all attempts to grade engineers with arbitrary prefixes like “eminent”, “outstanding”, “senior” etc. which this draft bill is littered with. This will needlessly lead to politicking which shall divide the already divided communities of engineers. It may be kept in mind that the number of engineers in India far exceeds the combined number of architects, lawyers and doctors. We decry the role of unrepresentative colonial bodies like Institution of Engineers and IETE which have divided engineers with phony divisive colonial titles like Associate Member, Member, Fellow etc. which they sell for annual fees.
We forcefully object to First Register members being subjected to the whims and dictates of any “authorised body” (association or institution) which purportedly has the legal mandate to: a) Uniformly decide across the country on the qualification, competency and experience requirements of engineers for a particular work. b) Grade engineers based on their qualifications, competency, experience and demonstrated capability and certify them? c) Mandate and monitor that every certified engineer continuously updates knowledge and skills. These are utterly obnoxious clauses, deeply objectionable and packed with arbitrariness potential.
Furthermore, the IPEC may only accord the status of Professional Engineer. There must be right of appeal and procedures for decisions of IPEC clearly spelt out in the Bill. Thereafter the clients of the services/employers have their own specific requirements for a particular job/assignment. It is neither required nor feasible for the council to do it for so many disciplines and for unknown requirements/ situations.
Because Professional engineers require a range of skills to excel in their field. We must prioritize the development of these skills to ensure that our engineers are equipped to drive innovation and growth. In addition to Education and Research, Key skills include:
* Design: The ability to design innovative solutions that meet industry needs.
* Manufacturing: Knowledge of manufacturing processes and technologies.
* Supervision: The ability to supervise and manage projects effectively.
* Certification: Issuing relevant certifications in accordance with their expertise and competence.
NB: It must be legislated that those Engineers who are Designers are also entitled to cross domain registration under various Design Acts and to Design bodies.
Because either the Ministry of Science and Technology or else the Ministry of Industry should regulate professional engineers, and not the Ministry of Higher Education or the Ministry of Commerce. This will ensure that our regulatory framework is aligned with the needs of industry and the nation. We suggest changes be made in the Allocation of Business Rules.
Because our submissions are made after due consultation with professional engineers from other groupings such as ECI (Engineering Council of India), CEAI (Consulting Engineers Association of India), IAStrE (Indian Association of Structural Engineers), BITSAA (BITS Pilani Alumni Association), IEI (Institution of Engineers India), Association of Graduate Engineers, and national / patriotic groups fraternally interested in engineering domain such as “Swadeshi Jagran Manch”, “Laghu Udyog Bharti”, “Akhil Bharat Hindu Samaj”, “Adi Dharm Prachar Samiti”, “Federation of Arya Samaj”, “All Indian Brahmin Sabha” etc.
We reproduce the outcomes of these discussions as follows for better harmonization with ours through open and public debate on public proceedings consonant with National pre-Legislative Policy norms:-
1. Council for Engineering profession- The Bill is inherently flawed. Normally a regulatory body or a profession should be run by the Profession itself, with very small involvement of the government nominees (for Example-Legal profession). In the Bill, there is major involvement and control by government nominees. Even the practicing engineers are proposed to be nominated by government, instead of professional associations of engineers.
2. Professional Engineering Associations. The proposed Council is mainly for the engineering profession, not engineering education. But in the Bill, there is dominance of academic representatives in Board of Governors and the Council, as compared to representatives of professional engineering associations. The No. of academic nominees should be reduced and 1-2 nominees of Industry associations be included in the Council
3. Registration by professional Engineering Associations- In a vast country like India, it is very difficult for one Council to itself register a very large no. of professional engineers. It should determine the criteria, procedure etc., for registering Professional Engineers, and delegate this task to the Professional associations of engineers. It can undertake monitoring.
4. Elected Board of Governors- The Board of Governors should be formed/elected by the Council with a few nominated members (including from government)
5. Rights of Professional Engineers-The Bill should specify the legal rights, and safeguards for professional engineers, enable them to practice their duties with confidence and professionalism.
6. No other registration needed-The bill should clearly say that once a person is registered as a Professional Engineer, s/he need not register with and state or municipal, local or any other body for carrying out the practice in any part of the Country.
7. Debar non-PEs from Practice-The main purpose of a Regulatory body normally is to ensure that only Registered Professional Engineers (PE) can undertake Professional Engineering practice, as defined in the Bill. It should explicitly bar any person who is not registered as PE, to undertake such practice. Any person doing so should be punished and the punishment and the procedure for determining it should be clearly outlined in the bill. (refer to similar provisions for regulatory bodies for other professions such as legal, medical, dentistry etc.)
8. Non-Indians: It is not clear whether non-Indian citizens can be registered as Professional Engineers (PE). In several other professions such as legal, only Indian citizens are normally registered so that persons from other countries do not set up practice in India.
However, it may be considered equally that those otherwise eligible engineers with Indian degrees who have gone abroad for further studies may be allowed to practice also so long as they have citizenship or OCI of India and specifically undertake not to work against India’s national interests.
9. Clause 4.3-Board of Governors- The Board is heavily weighted in favour of government nominees and there is disconnect with the Council. All bodies and councils envisaged under the Act are essentially government controlled though pliable persons, academics and vested interest associations. This is not at all conducive to independence and autonomy of professional engineers, inter alia to regulate themselves, such as the advocates can.
In conclusion, we urge policymakers to reconsider all these critical aspects and engage in deeper, more transparent and meaningful consultations with stakeholders to craft a more inclusive and effective regulatory framework. We must defend also our engineering education system against foreign predatory influences and uphold the integrity of our certifications. By prioritizing the development of DESIGN, MANUFACTURING, SUPERVISION, EDUCATION, RESEARCH and CERTIFICATION skills, we can empower our professional engineers to drive innovation and growth, and establish India as a global leader in engineering and technology.
1. Consider each and every one of our aforesaid grounds,
2. Grant us and our members, jointly or individually, effective opportunity of personal hearing,
3. Provide us and the whole world digital copies of all comments submitted, so that we may submit our counter-comments if needed.
4. Extend the date for submission of responses by at least 21 days with an additional 15 days for counter comments. The very short time of only 6 days initially granted to respond is ARBITRARY, HIGH HANDED, CAPRICIOUS and CORRUPT and smacks of external manipulation to benefit foreign powers inimical to India.
Submitted by
Er. Sarbajit Roy
(B.E.Hons in Mechanical Engg., BITS Pilani, 1980 admission),
New Delhi, India
As discussed and agreed online and Submitted for the following Graduate Engineers in representative capacity and as Core sub-Committee
1. Er. Chandrakant J Karira, BITS Pilani 1978 Chemical Engg. (Hyderabad)
2. Er. Sudhir Mehrotra, BITS Pilani 1980 Mechanical Engg. (Gurugram)
3. Er. Rajiv Patel BITS Pilani 1980 Electrical and Electronics Engg.(Ahmedabad/California)
4. Er. Jitendra Bhaskar Divgi, BITS Pilani 1980 Mechanical Engg. (Pune)
5. Er. N. Venkatesh BITS Pilani 1980 Mechanical Engg. (Pallakad)
6. Er. Sarbajit Roy BITS Pilani 1980 Mechanical Engg. (New Delhi)
7. Er. Nitish Baliga, BITS Pilani 1980 Mechanical Engg. (Gurugram)
8. Er. Deepak Kumar Kataria, BITS Pilani 1980 Electrical and Electronics Engg.(Indore/Washington DC)
9. Er. Vineet Taneja, BITS Pilani 1981 Mechanical Engg.(New Delhi)
10. Er. Atul Bhargava BITS Pilani 1981-85 EE Engg, (Delhi NCR)
11. Er. R.Narasimhan Iyer,BITS PILANI,1981-85 EE Eng, (Delhi NCR)
12. Er. Sanjay Goel, BITS Pilani, 1981-86, EE Engg., (Delhi NCR)
13. Er. Sudhir Narang, BITS Pilani, 1981 Engg. (New Delhi)
14. Er. Arvind Bahl, BITS Pilani 1983 Civil Engg.(New Delhi)
15. Er. Divyanshu Mittal, BITS Pilani 2002 Marine Engg.(New Delhi)
REPRESENTING National Association of Multi-Specialty Engineers
Address: 2nd floor. B-59 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 (India)
Mobile: +91 99535 86513 / +91 80102 05897
Website : https://www.namse.org
Supporting Organizations who discussed and support this submission
1. Swadeshi Jagran Manch www.swadeshijagranmanch.com
2. Laghu Udyog Bharti (Delhi)
3. Akhil Bharat Hindu Samaj www.hindusamaj.in
4. Adi Dharm Prachar Samiti www.adidharm.in
5. Federation of Arya Samajes www.aryasamajindia.in
6. All India Brahmin Sabhas
7. TS Rajendra Alumni Organization
National Association of Multi-Specialty Engineers