Introduction
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act of 2016 was introduced to transform India’s real estate market. It aimed to enable transparent transactions regarding properties and to draw accountability over the defaulters, be it developers, promoters, or buyers.
It focused on eliminating builder frauds and unjustified delays and attempted to balance out the position of homebuyers and developers by making legal remedies more accessible and by putting in place mandates of project registration, disclosure obligations, escrow requirements and state-level regulatory authorities.
Unlike other regulatory frameworks, RERA was not designed merely as a regulatory compliance to be restricted to paper; it was built to be a tool for consumer protection which was then used to restore public trust in the real estate market. Now, with over a decade since its enforcement on 1st May, 2026, the Act stands amended, with the first central amendment made by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026.
Jan Vishwas Amendment
The Jan Vishwas legislative initiative is an expression of the government’s policy objective of promoting ease of doing business by reducing criminal liability for technical and procedural non-compliance across multiple economic legislations. The amendments are also consistent with the broader philosophy that imprisonment should be reserved for serious fraud or wilful misconduct and not for operational lapses or regulatory delays.
In respect of RERA, the 2026 amendments seek to dilute some of the criminal ramifications and replace them with administrative sanctions, pecuniary sanctions and adjudicatory procedures. The change represents a departure from a punitive regulatory model to a compliance-based paradigm.
Impact & Rationale of Jan Vishwas Amendment on RERA
Contrary to the broader public discussions about “RERA decriminalisation,” the Jan Vishwas amendments have not weakened the entire penal framework of the Act. The amendment affects Section 68 only. Before the amendment, Section 68 provided for punishment for homebuyers in the form of imprisonment which can extend up to a term of 1 year or a fine for each day when order was disobeyed, which could extend up to 10% of the amount of property or both, if an allottee did not follow any order, decision, or direction from the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
The Jan Vishwas framework has now removed the possibility of imprisonment from Section 68. As a result, an allottee's failure to comply no longer leads to jail time and is limited to fines.
Importantly, the imprisonment rules for promoters and real estate agents under Sections 64 and 66 are still in place. The penalties under Sections 59, 60, 61, and 63 related to promoter violations also remain unchanged. Therefore, calling the amendment a complete “decriminalisation of RERA” would not be legally correct. The amendment is specific and focused, applying only to allottees under Section 68.
The reasoning behind the amendment seems to come from the broader philosophy of the Jan Vishwas legislative framework. In the context of RERA, the criminal liability placed on homebuyers under Section 68 was often seen as too harsh.
A homebuyer is usually the weaker party in a real estate deal. Subjecting these buyers to possible imprisonment for not following Tribunal orders created an unfair situation. So, the amendment seems to recognize the real challenges in the sector.
Impact on Homebuyers
The amendment provides major relief to the buyers. Removal of the criminal penalty under section 68 lessens the risk of criminal proceedings at the appellate level and also further solidifies RERA's reputation as a consumer-focused statute.
This change is important since it involves a great majority of middle-class consumers investing life savings into homes. Facing criminal penalties or imprisonment would bring tremendous psychological and financial strain to these allottees who are already in conflict with their builders over long-pending disputes.
By restricting consequences only to monetary fines, the amendment brings fairness to the enforcement process. It also reflects a trend where civil and administrative penalties are becoming more common than imprisonment for non-violent economic issues.
Does the Amendment Dilute RERA?
Whether the amendment weakens RERA depends on one's viewpoint. From a developer’s perspective, the amendment does not significantly change the liability structure, as strict penalties for promoters still apply.
From a legal policy viewpoint, the amendment seems more like a rational adjustment than a dilution. Removing imprisonment for homebuyers addresses this inconsistency without disrupting the overall enforcement framework of the Act.
The Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged the consumer-focused nature of RERA. In M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni (2020), the Court noted that RERA remedies aim to strengthen consumer protection and work in tandem with remedies under the Consumer Protection Act. Similarly, in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Court described RERA as a specific system for ensuring quick resolution and accountability in real estate.
In this light, the amendment to Section 68 aligns to protect allottees rather than punish them.
Conclusion
The Jan Vishwas amendment to Section 68 of RERA is a concentrated but consequential reform. While being hailed as RERA decriminalisation in common parlance, it does not altogether strip the Act of its penal nature.
Ultimately, the amendment signifies a broader shift in Indian regulatory policy toward reducing unnecessary criminalization while maintaining accountability when it is truly needed. Whether this balance works in practice will depend not only on how the law is written but also on how effectively RERA enforcement authorities operate.