Introduction

The recent observation by the Supreme Court that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) may as well be abolished if it ends up benefitting only builders has reignited debate around the effectiveness of the law. Enacted to provide protection to homebuyers and introduce transparency in the real estate, RERA was envisioned as a corrective framework.

However, its current scrutiny raises a fundamental question: When a law falls short in implementation, should it be discarded or strengthened?

Understanding the Concern: Where RERA Falls Short

The Supreme Court’s concern stems from gaps in RERA’s implementation. While orders are often passed in favour of homebuyers, their enforcement is frequently delayed, reducing their practical impact.

This gap becomes clearer when one looks at the structure of the Act itself. Inconsistent implementation across states and procedural loopholes allow some developers to delay compliance. These issues are further compounded by the fact that, although Section 63 prescribes penalties for non-compliance, the absence of swift and certain enforcement reduces its deterrent value.

These issues raise valid concerns about effectiveness but point to the need for reform, not abolition.

The Other Side: RERA’s Impact on Homebuyers

Despite its limitations, it has significantly improved the position of homebuyers. It has provided a dedicated forum for dispute resolution, offering quicker relief compared to traditional civil courts.

Provisions such as Section 18, which entitles them to refunds and compensation for delay in possession, and Section 19, which lays down the rights and duties of allottees, have created a statutory basis for accountability that did not previously exist.

They have benefited through refund orders, compensation for delays, and greater transparency in project details. For many, it has made it possible to hold developers accountable in a way that was previously difficult, showing that the law, while imperfect, is far from ineffective.

The Real Risk: A Regulatory Vacuum

Abolishing it would not solve existing issues, it would create a far more serious problem by removing a dedicated regulatory and grievance redressal framework altogether. The real estate sector, given its scale and impact on individual investments, cannot be left without structured oversight.

If RERA were to be removed:

• • Homebuyers would be pushed back to the already overburdened civil courts

• • Dispute resolution would become slower, costlier, and less accessible

• • Developer accountability would weaken in the absence of a sector-specific regulator

• • Transparency measures, such as those mandated under Section 4 (registration and disclosure requirements), could lose their enforceability

Eliminating it would therefore not address inefficiencies, it would simply remove the only specialized mechanism designed to tackle them.

The Way Forward: Strengthening RERA

The solution lies not in abolishing RERA, but in addressing the gaps that limit its effectiveness. Strengthening the framework can ensure that it delivers on its original promise of protecting housebuyers while regulating developers more efficiently.

One of the key areas of reform is enforcement. Orders passed by the authority must translate into real, time-bound outcomes. Without this, even favourable decisions lose their value.

This is particularly relevant because, while Section 71 empowers adjudicating officers to determine compensation, the Act does not always provide equally strong, independent execution powers which creates a gap between adjudication and enforcement.

Some practical steps include:

• Stronger enforcement powers: Move beyond indirect recovery under Section 40 and enable direct execution mechanisms such as attachment of assets
• Time-bound execution: Introduce strict timelines for enforcement of its orders
• Uniform implementation: Reduce state-level dilution of provisions to ensure consistency
• Improved monitoring: Use digital systems to track compliance, project progress, and execution of orders
• Accountability of authorities: Ensure that the bodies exercise powers effectively and transparently
•  
• By focusing on these reforms, it can evolve into a more robust and reliable regulatory body. The goal should not be to question its existence, but to ensure that it functions with the authority and efficiency it was originally intended to have.

Conclusion

The debate around RERA highlights a deeper issue which is not the failure of the law, but the failure to empower it effectively. While its shortcomings are real, abolishing it would only remove a crucial safeguard for homebuyers without solving the underlying problems.

When key provisions lack strong enforcement backing, the law appears ineffective not because it is flawed in intent, but because it is not given enough teeth to act.

The focus must shift from questioning RERA’s existence to strengthening its enforcement and implementation. In a sector as critical as real estate, the answer is not less regulation but better regulation.