Supreme Court Criticises RERA, Suggests Abolition if It Only Helps Builders

The apex court delivered a strong rebuke of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, questioning its effectiveness and allowing Himachal Pradesh to move its RERA office to Dharamshala pending a High Court decision. 

Supreme Court Criticises RERA and Calls for Possible Abolition 

On February 12, 2026, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the body created for home‑buyers appears to leave them “completely depressed, disgusted and disappointed”.  

The judges stated that the authority “does nothing except facilitate defaulting builders” and expressed that abolishing the institution would not be opposed. The observation was made in the case State of Himachal Pradesh vs Naresh Sharma (SLP(C) No. 005835‑/2026). 

Himachal Pradesh RERA Office Relocation 

The state government petitioned the Supreme Court to shift the RERA office from Shimla to Dharamshala, citing decongestion of Shimla and purely administrative reasons.  

The court permitted the move but linked it to the final outcome of the writ petition pending before the High Court. The High Court had earlier stayed a June 2025 notification and reaffirmed the stay on December 30, 2025; the apex court stayed that December order. 

Read More: MHADA Pune Lottery Declares Results For 4,186 Flats Amid Massive Response! 

Court Observations on Builder Defaults and Public Sentiment 

Advocates highlighted that about 90% of projects handled by RERA are located within a 40 km radius of Shimla, Solan, Parwanoo and Sirmaur, and roughly 92% of pending complaints arise from these districts, while only 20 projects exist in Dharamshala.  

The bench noted that Shimla is “completely over exhausted”. It also directed that appellate powers shift from the principal district judge in Shimla to the principal district judge in Dharamshala to avoid inconvenience for aggrieved parties. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s remarks underscore serious concerns about RERA’s role in protecting home‑buyers, while the permission to relocate Himachal’s office reflects a procedural decision pending further judicial review. 

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities or companies mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation or investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions. 

Investments in the securities market are subject to market risks, read all the related documents carefully before investing.