<p>The Supreme Court’s reiteration that the right to housing is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has a significance that goes beyond the case which occasioned the ruling. The Court has, in several past judgements, underlined the right to housing, which is also an important, internationally recognised human right. </p><p>In its past judgements, the Court has engaged with multiple aspects of the right, and maintained that the right to shelter is not just the right to have a roof over the head but also to have a safe and habitable dwelling with basic infrastructure. The government has not been able to provide this to the vast majority in the country, and the policies that seek to translate this right into a reality are flawed, as reflected in the many housing schemes initiated by the Central and state governments.</p>.<p>An important aspect of the case before the apex court involved the protection of homebuyers’ interests in the commercial housing market, which has witnessed a major expansion during the last few years. A combination of the demand for houses, the big money involved in the business, and the adoption of unethical practices by many in the sector has led to widespread exploitation of homebuyers. </p><p>The Court took note of serious issues plaguing the sector and warned against the building of asset bubbles. It said the State must address “the menace of a parallel cash economy and speculative practices in the real estate market.”</p>.<p>In a significant recommendation, the Court has told the Central government to consider establishing a revival fund that would provide bridge finance for real estate projects under stress. This is intended to prevent the liquidation of viable projects and to safeguard homebuyers’ interests. The setting up of the fund may help to avert cancellation of ongoing projects which often leaves homebuyers high and dry. </p><p>For the proposal to achieve its stated objective, it must facilitate easy, time-bound access. Many people invest their life savings in homes and may not be able to recover from the losses incurred in shelved projects. It has been seen that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) is not always able to protect their interests. </p><p>The Court has also ordered the constitution of a committee headed by a retired high court judge, to initiate systemic reforms of the real estate sector. This is a statement of intent to check malpractices in the industry but the road to the promised reforms will be long.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s reiteration that the right to housing is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has a significance that goes beyond the case which occasioned the ruling. The Court has, in several past judgements, underlined the right to housing, which is also an important, internationally recognised human right. </p><p>In its past judgements, the Court has engaged with multiple aspects of the right, and maintained that the right to shelter is not just the right to have a roof over the head but also to have a safe and habitable dwelling with basic infrastructure. The government has not been able to provide this to the vast majority in the country, and the policies that seek to translate this right into a reality are flawed, as reflected in the many housing schemes initiated by the Central and state governments.</p>.<p>An important aspect of the case before the apex court involved the protection of homebuyers’ interests in the commercial housing market, which has witnessed a major expansion during the last few years. A combination of the demand for houses, the big money involved in the business, and the adoption of unethical practices by many in the sector has led to widespread exploitation of homebuyers. </p><p>The Court took note of serious issues plaguing the sector and warned against the building of asset bubbles. It said the State must address “the menace of a parallel cash economy and speculative practices in the real estate market.”</p>.<p>In a significant recommendation, the Court has told the Central government to consider establishing a revival fund that would provide bridge finance for real estate projects under stress. This is intended to prevent the liquidation of viable projects and to safeguard homebuyers’ interests. The setting up of the fund may help to avert cancellation of ongoing projects which often leaves homebuyers high and dry. </p><p>For the proposal to achieve its stated objective, it must facilitate easy, time-bound access. Many people invest their life savings in homes and may not be able to recover from the losses incurred in shelved projects. It has been seen that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) is not always able to protect their interests. </p><p>The Court has also ordered the constitution of a committee headed by a retired high court judge, to initiate systemic reforms of the real estate sector. This is a statement of intent to check malpractices in the industry but the road to the promised reforms will be long.</p>
