IS 456:2000 and IS 13920:2002 distinguish columns from walls with both geometrical and empirical definitions that result in a sudden drop in the requirements of minimum longitudinal reinforcing steel at 0.4 cross-sectional aspect ratio or 2.5 length-to- width ratio. Designer wishing to offer economical designs would be tempted to use this ambiguity leading to unsafe designs. Therefore, to make structures safe and to check the lacunae in the codes, this paper argues in favour of having a gradual transition in the reinforcement requirement as the crosssectional aspect ratio changes from small to large. In light of international practice, the paper critically reviews IS codes' columns and walls reinforcement-detailing provisions and suggests possible improvements.