Investigation against the MP RERA chief is concluded by the Supreme Court, following the High Court's decision to terminate their inquiry.
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has disposed of two petitions that challenged the removal inquiry against the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) chairperson, AP Srivastava.
The proceedings were closed following the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to withdraw the inquiry against Mr. Srivastava. The High Court had recalled the show cause notice dated 20-2-2025 and dropped the inquiry altogether.
The case originated from a complaint filed by a homebuyer against an order of the RERA chairperson refusing criminal prosecution against a builder. The top court recorded the communication placed before it by counsel for the High Court.
Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Samdarshi Tiwari, and others represented the petitioners, while Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi, along with other advocates, represented the State and the High Court.
The petitions raised a broader issue of protecting the independence of regulatory authorities like RERA from routine political interference. The chairperson challenged the process before the Supreme Court on the ground that the State had not followed mandatory procedure.
However, the Bench refused to grant liberty to the High Court to reopen or reinitiate the inquiry process. The Bench stated that there is no need to adjudicate the petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
In addition, the RERA Authority itself filed a separate petition seeking guidelines to insulate its members from such inquiries. The Supreme Court found no reason to continue with the writ petitions filed by AP Srivastava and the RERA Authority.
The order brought an end to the challenge, leaving no scope for the inquiry to be revived. The Chief Justice-led committee found the inquiry process against AP Srivastava to be legally flawed.
Nachiketa Joshi, who was engaged as a lawyer to represent in the Madhya Pradesh High Court during the negotiations, represented the State and the High Court in the Supreme Court.
This decision is expected to provide clarity on the independence of regulatory authorities and the procedures that should be followed in such inquiry processes.
Read also:
- Lu Shiow-yen's Challenging Position as Chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Under Scrutiny in Donovan's Analysis
- Approval Granted for Significant Infrastructure Initiatives in Maharashtra
- Who is Palestine Action, the organization tied to numerous arrests within the UK?
- "Trump Criticizes EU's $3.5 billion fine on Google as Unjust, Threatens Additional Tariffs"
