Deepak Dwivedi
NEW DELHI: The suggestion from the Supreme Court that it might be “better to abolish” the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has, understandably, sent ripples through the property market. It is not every day that a regulatory architecture, painstakingly created by Parliament, faces such sharp judicial censure. Yet it is important to separate rhetoric from ruling. The apex court has not ordered the dismantling of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. What it has done is deliver a stinging indictment of how the law is being implemented.
The observations came during a hearing concerning the functioning of the Himachal Pradesh regulator, when a Bench of the Supreme Court expressed frustration that RERA, in several states, appears to be “doing nothing except facilitating defaulting builders.” The remark that it may be better to abolish the institution was not a formal directive but an expression of exasperation at the widening gap between legislative promise and regulatory performance.
RERA was conceived as a corrective to decades of opacity in India’s real estate sector. Homebuyers were routinely left stranded by delayed projects, cost escalations and opaque contracts. The Act sought to introduce transparency, mandatory project registration, escrow mechanisms for funds, and time-bound dispute resolution. It was hailed as a structural reform that would restore confidence in a sector critical to both growth and household savings.
Nearly a decade later, the court’s comments reflect a sobering reality. In many states, regulatory capacity has lagged behind statutory ambition. Orders passed by state RERA authorities are not always enforced with urgency. Developers facing penalties often pursue appeals that prolong disputes. In some jurisdictions, vacancies in appellate tribunals have compounded delays. The very institution designed to provide swift relief risks becoming another procedural layer in an already overburdened system. The court’s criticism must be read as a warning rather than a verdict.
The court’s criticism must be read as a warning rather than a verdict
Abolishing RERA would not solve the underlying problem; it would merely return the sector to a pre-2016 landscape of fragmented consumer litigation and uneven oversight. The deeper issue is regulatory will and administrative competence. There is also a federal dimension. RERA’s implementation rests largely with states, which constitute and staff the authorities. Variations in quality are, therefore, inevitable. Some states have demonstrated relative efficiency and transparency, while others have struggled with resources, expertise or independence. The apex court’s remarks underscore the need for greater standardisation and accountability across jurisdictions.
For homebuyers who have been at the receiving end, the episode revives anxieties that were meant to have been settled. For developers, it signals that judicial patience with regulatory underperformance is wearing thin. For policymakers, it poses a sharper question: should the answer to weak enforcement be institutional rollback, or institutional strengthening?
The constructive course lies in reforming RERA’s functioning rather than discarding its framework. Filling vacancies promptly, ensuring enforceability of orders, digitising case management, and introducing measurable performance benchmarks would go further than rhetorical abolition. A periodic national audit of state regulators could also bring comparability and public scrutiny. The court’s rebuke is less about dismantling an institution and more about demanding that it lives up to its mandate. The credibility of a regulatory state depends not on the proliferation of laws, but on their faithful execution. The SC warning is a reminder that reform is not an event, but a discipline.
