The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the functioning of Real Estate Regulatory Authorities (RERAs) across the country, remarking that the institution—originally set up to protect homebuyers—is failing in its purpose and merely “facilitating the builders in default.”
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the sharp remarks while hearing a plea by the Himachal Pradesh government challenging a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had stayed its decision to shift the RERA office from Shimla to Dharamshala.
“Except facilitating the builders in default, this institution is doing nothing. Better abolish this institution, we don’t mind that,” CJI Surya Kant remarked, adding, “It is high time that all the states should revisit and rethink even constituting this authority.”
The bench stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s December 30, 2025 order, which had continued an earlier stay on the notification shifting the RERA office. While issuing notice in the state’s appeal, the top court permitted the Himachal government to proceed with the relocation, stating:
“The state is permitted to shift the office of RERA to the place of its choice. However, it shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition pending before the High Court.”
Reacting to submissions that a retired IAS officer was appointed to head RERA, the bench questioned the efficacy of such appointments:
“In every state, it has become a rehabilitation centre. These authorities are all occupied by these persons. The people for whom this institution was created, they are completely depressed, disgusted and disappointed. None of them are getting any effective relief.”
The court further questioned how retired bureaucrats would be of any use in regional planning or providing buyer relief, suggesting that professionals with local knowledge, such as architects familiar with environmental concerns in places like Palampur and Dharamshala, would be more appropriate.
The Himachal Pradesh government had shifted the RERA office citing administrative reasons and the need to decongest Shimla. Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan submitted that the relocation was part of a broader policy to develop other urban centres like Dharamshala and Palampur.
However, the respondent argued that most of RERA’s workload—over 90% of projects and complaints—comes from Shimla, Solan, Parwanoo, and Sirmaur, all within 40 km of Shimla. Only about 20 projects are in Dharamshala, the court was told.
The advocate general also informed the bench that the state is promoting decentralisation through planned urban development in other regions.
Taking into account logistical concerns raised by the respondents, the bench directed a change in the appellate forum as well:
“With a view to ensure that the persons affected by the orders of RERA are not caused any inconvenience to visit Shimla for the purpose of filing appeals, it is further directed that appellate power may be shifted from principal district judge, Shimla, to principal district judge of Dharamshala.”
Thursday’s observations reflect the apex court’s growing concern over the effectiveness of RERA bodies, which were created under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to regulate the real estate sector and ensure timely delivery and transparency in projects.
By stating that states should reconsider even setting up RERAs, the court has sent a clear signal that reform is urgently needed.
This is not the first time the top court has taken a strong view against judicial interference in administrative decisions. On February 9, in a separate case, it had set aside an interim order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court staying the state’s decision to move the OBC Commission from Shimla to Dharamshala, reaffirming that such matters fall within the executive domain.
