The Supreme Court of India recently brought closure to the much-debated proceedings concerning the removal inquiry against the Chairperson of the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MP RERA). In AP Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., the Court made it clear that once the Madhya Pradesh High Court itself had withdrawn the inquiry due to procedural lapses, there was no reason for the matter to continue.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta not only acknowledged the High Court’s decision to recall the show cause notice but also refused to grant liberty to reinitiate the process. This order effectively secured the tenure of the RERA Chairperson, while also raising broader questions about the independence of statutory regulators and the need for procedural safeguards.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when a homebuyer filed a complaint against an order of the MP RERA Chairperson, who had refused to initiate criminal prosecution against a builder. Acting on this complaint, the State government wrote to the High Court, seeking an inquiry into the possible removal of the Chairperson under Section 26 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) read with Rule 35 of the MP RERA Rules, 2017.
Subsequently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s committee, headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court, issued a show cause notice dated February 20, 2025. This set off a chain of events where the Chairperson challenged the process before the Supreme Court, questioning its legality.
Grounds of Challenge
The Chairperson, represented by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Samdarshi Tiwari, along with a team of lawyers, argued that the State had failed to follow the mandatory safeguards under law. Their objections included:
- Lack of preliminary scrutiny before forwarding the complaint.
- Failure to provide the Chairperson an opportunity to present his version prior to initiating an inquiry.
- Absence of clearly framed charges, which is mandatory under Section 26(2) of the RERA Act.
It was submitted that these procedural lapses not only vitiated the inquiry but also posed a threat to the independence of RERA, as such actions could leave its officials vulnerable to political or executive pressure.
The MP RERA Authority itself filed a separate petition, seeking guidelines to protect members from arbitrary inquiries and ensure institutional independence.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
In March 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the inquiry, observing that the process appeared prima facie inconsistent with statutory requirements. The Bench sought responses from the Chief Minister’s Office, the Registrar General of the High Court, and the State Chief Secretary, to better understand the legality of the steps taken.
When the matter was revisited on September 2, 2025, the counsel for the High Court informed the Bench that the Chief Justice-led committee had reconsidered the matter and dropped the inquiry citing procedural lapses. The show cause notice was formally recalled.
Supreme Court’s Order
Taking the communication on record, the Bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mehta noted:
“The High Court has decided to drop the inquiry. In other words, the High Court has taken a decision to recall the show cause notice dated 20-2-2025.”
The Court further clarified that:
- Since the High Court had itself withdrawn the inquiry, there was no reason to continue with the petitions.
- The Supreme Court would not permit the High Court to reopen or reinitiate the inquiry.
This categorical refusal ensured that the matter was finally settled, leaving the Chairperson free to continue in office without fear of a revived inquiry.
Legal Framework: Section 26 of the RERA Act
Under Section 26 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Chairperson or any Member of RERA can be removed only after:
- A proper complaint is made.
- The State Government conducts preliminary scrutiny.
- Clear charges are prepared and communicated.
- The concerned official is given a chance to present his case.
- The matter is then referred to the High Court for inquiry.
This layered safeguard ensures that removal proceedings are not initiated arbitrarily, thereby protecting the autonomy of the Authority. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the strict compliance required under Section 26(2), signaling that even High Courts cannot bypass statutory procedure.
Broader Significance of the Judgment
1. Strengthening Independence of RERA
The judgment is a crucial step in insulating RERA from political or administrative interference. As RERA regulates the real estate sector—a field often influenced by powerful economic interests—judicial protection of its independence is vital.
2. Reaffirmation of Procedural Fairness
The Court made it clear that procedural safeguards are not empty formalities. Even in inquiries against regulatory officials, due process must be scrupulously followed.
3. Precedent for Other Regulatory Bodies
Beyond RERA, this ruling has implications for other regulators such as SEBI, TRAI, IRDAI, and CCI, whose members can also face removal under similar statutory frameworks. The message is clear: removal cannot be weaponized against officials who take decisions unfavorable to influential stakeholders.
4. Judicial Oversight over Executive Actions
By staying the inquiry in March and later closing the case in September, the Supreme Court demonstrated its role as the guardian of institutional autonomy.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court closed proceedings against the MP RERA Chairperson after the High Court dropped the inquiry due to procedural lapses.
- The show cause notice was recalled, and no liberty was given to reopen the inquiry.
- The judgment underscores strict compliance with Section 26 of the RERA Act.
- The Court indirectly emphasized the importance of independence of regulatory bodies.
- The ruling has a larger impact on ensuring checks against political or executive interference in statutory authorities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in AP Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. is not just a relief for the MP RERA Chairperson but a landmark ruling protecting the independence of regulatory institutions in India. By refusing to allow reinitiation of the inquiry, the Court ensured that statutory regulators remain free from arbitrary removal threats.
At a time when regulatory authorities are playing an increasingly critical role in consumer protection and sectoral governance, this judgment provides much-needed clarity. It reaffirms that constitutional courts will stand guard over due process and institutional independence, striking a balance between accountability and autonomy.
Also Read
Selective Regularisation of Daily Wagers Violates Equity: Supreme Court
Supreme Court Criticises Punjab & Haryana High Court Over Anticipatory Bail Plea in Corruption Case
