The Draft Professional Engineers’ Bill 2025 is nothing but another security issue. Thanks to the timing of its release!
1. Defense & Security
- Could lead to the deliberate leak of resume and data of defense tech experts to foreign entities under the garb of professional certifications.
- Could hamper engineers working in the defense and security domain.
- Could cause financial burden on defense technology practitioners.
- Could create unnecessary hurdles in the timelines of defense tech professionals.
- Could enforce defense tech professionals to engage in phony training courses.
- Could indoctrinate defense tech professionals with foreign parroted training modules.
- Could demotivate professional engineers opting to strive for the nationalistic practices.
- Could compromise national security by unnecessarily interfering with the top-notch young defense tech engineers and their startups.
- Could degrade the quality of innovation by implementing obsolete and retarded foreign practices.
- Could degrade the quality of timely disruptions currently required in the security and defense domain.
- Could degrade the careers of defense tech engineers by reducing their innovative skills under the ambit of foreign inspired evaluation systems.
- Could propel foreign narratives against defense tech experts.
- Could enforce the use of foreign software in the manipulative criteria.
- Could slow-down indigenization of defense tech when it is the need of the hour.
- Could create divide among defense tech engineers working together on multidisciplinary defense projects.
- Could lead to shutting down of various defense tech startups creating panic among others.
2. Expert Consultation
- Insufficient engagement with professional bodies.
- Lack of Engagement with Next-gen policy think tanks.
- Lack of Engagement with Superior Force Intellects.
- Drafting committee composition not fully disclosed.
- Lack of Disclosure regarding the Expertise and Authenticity of the Drafting committee.
- No Neutral Expert validation of the Drafting committee.
- Perceived lack of transparency in policy intent.
3. Public Consultation
- Limited public awareness before release.
- Short window for feedback.
- Drafting committee composition not fully disclosed.
- Lack of Disclosure regarding the Expertise and Authenticity of the Drafting committee.
- Perceived lack of transparency in policy intent.
4. Overlap & Redundancy with Existing Laws
- Claims to create a new regulatory body despite existing institutions like IEI, CoA, etc.
- Could lead to duplication of licensing and accreditation processes already in place.
- Could lead to risks of bureaucratic inefficiency due to overlapping jurisdictions.
- Could lead to confusion over which body has the final authority.
- Could lead to conflicting regulations between councils.
5. Threat to Other Professions
- Broad definitions may encroach on architects’ statutory domain.
- Overlaps with town planners, surveyors, and environmental engineers.
- Could dilute the autonomy of existing professional councils.
- May undermine the Council of Architecture’s legal mandate.
- Creates inter-professional disputes over project leadership.
6. Naivety and Ambiguity in Defining terminologies
- “Professional Engineer” definition is too wide and vague. When the term “Engineer” is defined as a person holding undergraduate qualification in engineering/technology from recognized universities/ institutions, the term “Professional Engineer” holds no significance as the qualification for “Engineer” is already professional in nature. The undergraduate qualification that is referred to is already categorized as “professional” degree, hence the term “Professional Engineer” holds no significance. The term “Professional Engineer” is simply borrowed/ copy-pasted from existing bodies such as IEI, NSPE, etc. These terms are already defined by many other bodies as per their own criteria – hence re-defining it in the act makes no sense.
- No clear distinction between diploma holders, graduates, and specialists.
- Unclear scope of “engineering services” in multi-disciplinary projects.
- Phony criteria for “experience” and “competence.”
- Lacks clarity on recognition of foreign qualifications.
7. Licensing & Registration Concerns
- Mandatory licensing could exclude competent but unregistered engineers.
- Risk of gatekeeping by a central bureaucracy.
- Mandatory licensing for practicing engineers who do not hold the specified educational credentials poses a risk of leaving a large chunk of workforce un-recognized
- May disadvantage rural and small-town practitioners.
- Renewal requirements could be overly burdensome.
- No clear mechanism for rejected applications.
- Ambiguity and no transparency in approval/ rejection and grievance redressal processes
- No mention of external authority for complaint redressal failure
8. Centralization of Power
- Excessive control vested in a single national council.
- Weak representation from state-level bodies.
- Limited stakeholder participation in decision-making.
- Risk of political influence in appointments.
- Could marginalize smaller engineering disciplines.
9. Economic & Practical Impact
- Increased compliance costs for engineers and firms.
- Another profit-making entity/ sourced from individual professionals.
- Shifting accountability/ governance oversight from foreign tech organizations to professional individuals of your own country
- Potential rise in project costs due to licensing fees.
- May slow down project approvals.
- Could discourage young engineers from entering the profession.
- Burden on domestic MSMEs and start-ups in engineering services.
10. Lack of Transitional Provisions
- No clear grandfathering for existing practitioners.
- Risk of experienced engineers losing legal recognition overnight.
- No phased implementation plan.
- Could disrupt ongoing projects mid-way.
- Creates uncertainty for employers and clients.
11. Accountability & Enforcement Issues
- Favoritism and Corruption malpractices clearly evident in the draft and no mechanism to prevent such malpractices mentioned
- No independent oversight of the council’s decisions.
- Weak grievance redressal mechanisms.
- Disciplinary powers may be misused.
- Lack of transparency in rule-making.
- No clear checks against corruption or bias.
12. Education & Qualification Gaps
- Ignores diversity of engineering education pathways.
- Ignores engineers with traditional skills and knowledge and trained in regional languages
- No recognition of skill-based or vocational training.
- May undervalue practical experience over formal degrees.
- Could marginalize engineers from non-traditional backgrounds
- Dubious Evaluation system inspired from foreign
- No clear link between licensing and continuing education.
