Expanding RERA to Public Infrastructure: A Move Towards Greater Accountability
RERA, introduced in 2017, has significantly improved transparency in the real estate sector. However, it excludes public infrastructure projects, leaving a gap in accountability. This article explores the benefits and challenges of extending RERA's regulatory framework to large-scale infrastructure projects.
ReraPublic InfrastructureAccountabilityTransparencyReal EstateReal EstateJun 15, 2025
Real Estate:The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) was enacted to bring order and transparency to India’s real estate sector. It came into force on May 1, 2017, and established the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities in each state to oversee and adjudicate real estate transactions. RERA’s primary aim is to protect homebuyers and boost investment confidence by ensuring efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the sale of plots, apartments, and buildings. Key provisions of the Act mandate that real estate projects above a certain size (e.g., 500 sq. meters or 8 apartments) be registered with the state RERA, with detailed disclosures of project plans, timelines, land status, and approvals. Developers must deposit 70% of project funds in a dedicated escrow account to curb fund diversion, and they face penalties for delays or misinformation. Through such measures, RERA has standardized practices and introduced a much-needed grievance redressal mechanism in a sector once plagued by delays and malpractices. Its consumer-centric framework has improved transparency in real estate transactions.
However, RERA’s current scope is focused on real estate development for sale. It covers residential and commercial building projects where units are sold to buyers. But it does not extend to non-residential infrastructure projects. Public infrastructure projects such as highways, metro rail lines, airports, smart city installations, and public housing schemes built by the government generally fall outside RERA’s ambit. These projects are typically executed by government agencies or via public-private partnerships (PPPs) and do not involve the sale of individual units to “allottees” in the manner real estate projects do. As a result, India’s public infrastructure initiatives currently lack a RERA-like oversight.
The most obvious limitation is that RERA does not apply to public infrastructure works. The Act was designed for the real estate sector and excludes projects on public land or government contracts that aren’t about selling real estate. This means that a highway built by a private concessionaire, a metro rail project executed by a government-owned corporation, or a smart-city infrastructure installation, which might involve significant public funds and impact citizens, do not come under RERA’s transparency and accountability provisions. There is currently no obligation under RERA for such project promoters to register details, disclose progress, or uphold RERA’s standards of timely delivery and quality.
The public sector-led housing projects can sometimes fall in a gray area as well. For instance, even though the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initially argued that its housing schemes (being government-built and delivered upon completion) should not require RERA registration, the Delhi RERA Authority insisted on registration to protect homebuyers’ interests, eventually bringing 18 of DDA projects under RERA scrutiny since 2019. This example underscores that government agencies are not per se exempt from RERA when acting as real estate developers, but if no sale to individual buyers is involved, RERA provides no coverage.
The absence of a RERA-like mechanism for infrastructure means transparency and public accountability gaps persist in that sector. Large infrastructure projects often suffer from delays, cost overruns, opaque contracting practices, and quality issues, yet affected citizens have limited avenues for recourse short of general consumer courts or public interest litigation. There have been several high-profile instances of PPP infrastructure projects going awry which highlight these gaps. CBI investigations have unearthed wrongdoings in some of the contract awards and manipulation of toll revenue data, among other irregularities. The fallout saw the private operator losing its contract, and this scandal highlighted the need for greater transparency in contract management and toll collection systems in PPP projects.
Similar issues have been observed in some urban infrastructure relating to cost inflation and environmental compliance fudges, revealing that the public sector is not immune to the very problems RERA addresses in real estate. Yet, without a dedicated regulatory framework, such projects are left to internal government audits or ad-hoc inquiries, providing no real-time accountability to the public.
In the real estate realm, RERA gives individual homebuyers a platform to file complaints and seek redressal for delays or defects. In contrast, users of infrastructure (for instance, commuters on a toll road or residents waiting for a promised public water supply project) have no specialized tribunal or authority to hear their grievances in the context of project non-delivery or substandard services. The current setup relies on the contract between the government and the contractor, with disputes typically handled via arbitration or civil courts, where the general public’s interest is only indirectly represented. This limitation means the public’s trust can erode when projects suffer visible failings (like an unfinished highway stretch or a collapsed bridge) without a transparent system to fix responsibility.
The Srinagar–Katra railway line stands as one of the most delayed and cost-intensive infrastructure undertakings in India’s recent history. Conceptualized as a strategic and socio-economic lifeline to connect the Kashmir Valley with the rest of the Indian railway network, the project has been marred by extraordinary delays, escalating costs, and a lack of institutional accountability. Originally sanctioned in 1994–1995, the project was expected to be completed within a decade. However, despite multiple revised deadlines, the project was finally inaugurated in 2025. The cost of the project has ballooned to a staggering 15-fold. The construction of the Chenab Railway Bridge, now the world’s highest railway bridge, took over 20 years. Despite numerous audits, parliamentary reviews, and policy reports, there has been no effective mechanism to fix accountability on contractors, consultants, or government agencies for the delay and cost overrun. There is little public transparency on how delays were allowed to continue unchecked, and who bore responsibility for the cost escalations.
Extending RERA’s regulatory architecture for large-scale infrastructure projects could yield multiple benefits for governance and public trust. If infrastructure projects were required to register and publicly disclose project information similar to RERA’s mandate for real estate, it would significantly improve transparency. Details about project scope, cost, timelines, land acquisition status, approvals, and executing agencies would be available for public scrutiny. Such proactive disclosure would deter malpractices and enable citizens and oversight bodies to track progress. The RERA model’s financial discipline (e.g., escrow of funds for a specific project) could be adapted to infrastructure to prevent diversion of project funds. Large infrastructure initiatives often involve upfront grants or viability-gap funds from the government along with private investment. A RERA-like norm might ensure that these funds are earmarked for the project’s purposes, thereby curbing the risk of contractors using money from one project to finance others. Likewise, imposing timeline commitments with penalties (as RERA does for builders) would push contractors and agencies to stick to schedules or face penalties. The goal is to bring the same kind of project execution discipline to roads, rails, and bridges that RERA has begun instilling in housing projects.
Regulatory framework for infrastructure can set sector-wide service quality benchmarks. For example, maintenance standards for roads, safety protocols for metro construction, minimum amenities in public housing, and monitor compliance. A RERA-like authority could conduct inspections and certify that infrastructure is being built to prescribed standards. This not only improves the final quality but also reassures the public that an impartial body is keeping an eye on safety and durability. Ultimately, subjecting public infrastructure projects to transparent regulation would strengthen citizens’ trust in government spending and project delivery. It also boosts the comfort level of private investors and lenders in PPP projects. Infrastructure development managed with integrity, transparency, and accountability can pave the way for greater public trust in such projects.
While the rationale for extending a RERA-style regime to infrastructure is compelling, several practical challenges and jurisdictional constraints must be addressed. Public infrastructure sectors already have dedicated agencies and regulators (though of varying capacity). For example, national highways are overseen by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH); metro rail projects in cities are often executed by special purpose vehicles like the DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) or similar Metro Rail corporations; urban infrastructure falls under Urban Local Bodies or development authorities; and sectors like railways, ports, and airports have their own statutory bodies or regulators. Introducing a new regulatory layer could lead to jurisdictional conflicts. Any expansion of RERA’s scope to infrastructure would require careful calibration to avoid conflicts with other regulatory bodies such as the NHAI and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The challenge is to design the expanded framework so that it complements rather than contradicts existing institutions.
However, RERA’s current scope is focused on real estate development for sale. It covers residential and commercial building projects where units are sold to buyers. But it does not extend to non-residential infrastructure projects. Public infrastructure projects such as highways, metro rail lines, airports, smart city installations, and public housing schemes built by the government generally fall outside RERA’s ambit. These projects are typically executed by government agencies or via public-private partnerships (PPPs) and do not involve the sale of individual units to “allottees” in the manner real estate projects do. As a result, India’s public infrastructure initiatives currently lack a RERA-like oversight.
The most obvious limitation is that RERA does not apply to public infrastructure works. The Act was designed for the real estate sector and excludes projects on public land or government contracts that aren’t about selling real estate. This means that a highway built by a private concessionaire, a metro rail project executed by a government-owned corporation, or a smart-city infrastructure installation, which might involve significant public funds and impact citizens, do not come under RERA’s transparency and accountability provisions. There is currently no obligation under RERA for such project promoters to register details, disclose progress, or uphold RERA’s standards of timely delivery and quality.
The public sector-led housing projects can sometimes fall in a gray area as well. For instance, even though the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initially argued that its housing schemes (being government-built and delivered upon completion) should not require RERA registration, the Delhi RERA Authority insisted on registration to protect homebuyers’ interests, eventually bringing 18 of DDA projects under RERA scrutiny since 2019. This example underscores that government agencies are not per se exempt from RERA when acting as real estate developers, but if no sale to individual buyers is involved, RERA provides no coverage.
The absence of a RERA-like mechanism for infrastructure means transparency and public accountability gaps persist in that sector. Large infrastructure projects often suffer from delays, cost overruns, opaque contracting practices, and quality issues, yet affected citizens have limited avenues for recourse short of general consumer courts or public interest litigation. There have been several high-profile instances of PPP infrastructure projects going awry which highlight these gaps. CBI investigations have unearthed wrongdoings in some of the contract awards and manipulation of toll revenue data, among other irregularities. The fallout saw the private operator losing its contract, and this scandal highlighted the need for greater transparency in contract management and toll collection systems in PPP projects.
Similar issues have been observed in some urban infrastructure relating to cost inflation and environmental compliance fudges, revealing that the public sector is not immune to the very problems RERA addresses in real estate. Yet, without a dedicated regulatory framework, such projects are left to internal government audits or ad-hoc inquiries, providing no real-time accountability to the public.
In the real estate realm, RERA gives individual homebuyers a platform to file complaints and seek redressal for delays or defects. In contrast, users of infrastructure (for instance, commuters on a toll road or residents waiting for a promised public water supply project) have no specialized tribunal or authority to hear their grievances in the context of project non-delivery or substandard services. The current setup relies on the contract between the government and the contractor, with disputes typically handled via arbitration or civil courts, where the general public’s interest is only indirectly represented. This limitation means the public’s trust can erode when projects suffer visible failings (like an unfinished highway stretch or a collapsed bridge) without a transparent system to fix responsibility.
The Srinagar–Katra railway line stands as one of the most delayed and cost-intensive infrastructure undertakings in India’s recent history. Conceptualized as a strategic and socio-economic lifeline to connect the Kashmir Valley with the rest of the Indian railway network, the project has been marred by extraordinary delays, escalating costs, and a lack of institutional accountability. Originally sanctioned in 1994–1995, the project was expected to be completed within a decade. However, despite multiple revised deadlines, the project was finally inaugurated in 2025. The cost of the project has ballooned to a staggering 15-fold. The construction of the Chenab Railway Bridge, now the world’s highest railway bridge, took over 20 years. Despite numerous audits, parliamentary reviews, and policy reports, there has been no effective mechanism to fix accountability on contractors, consultants, or government agencies for the delay and cost overrun. There is little public transparency on how delays were allowed to continue unchecked, and who bore responsibility for the cost escalations.
Extending RERA’s regulatory architecture for large-scale infrastructure projects could yield multiple benefits for governance and public trust. If infrastructure projects were required to register and publicly disclose project information similar to RERA’s mandate for real estate, it would significantly improve transparency. Details about project scope, cost, timelines, land acquisition status, approvals, and executing agencies would be available for public scrutiny. Such proactive disclosure would deter malpractices and enable citizens and oversight bodies to track progress. The RERA model’s financial discipline (e.g., escrow of funds for a specific project) could be adapted to infrastructure to prevent diversion of project funds. Large infrastructure initiatives often involve upfront grants or viability-gap funds from the government along with private investment. A RERA-like norm might ensure that these funds are earmarked for the project’s purposes, thereby curbing the risk of contractors using money from one project to finance others. Likewise, imposing timeline commitments with penalties (as RERA does for builders) would push contractors and agencies to stick to schedules or face penalties. The goal is to bring the same kind of project execution discipline to roads, rails, and bridges that RERA has begun instilling in housing projects.
Regulatory framework for infrastructure can set sector-wide service quality benchmarks. For example, maintenance standards for roads, safety protocols for metro construction, minimum amenities in public housing, and monitor compliance. A RERA-like authority could conduct inspections and certify that infrastructure is being built to prescribed standards. This not only improves the final quality but also reassures the public that an impartial body is keeping an eye on safety and durability. Ultimately, subjecting public infrastructure projects to transparent regulation would strengthen citizens’ trust in government spending and project delivery. It also boosts the comfort level of private investors and lenders in PPP projects. Infrastructure development managed with integrity, transparency, and accountability can pave the way for greater public trust in such projects.
While the rationale for extending a RERA-style regime to infrastructure is compelling, several practical challenges and jurisdictional constraints must be addressed. Public infrastructure sectors already have dedicated agencies and regulators (though of varying capacity). For example, national highways are overseen by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH); metro rail projects in cities are often executed by special purpose vehicles like the DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) or similar Metro Rail corporations; urban infrastructure falls under Urban Local Bodies or development authorities; and sectors like railways, ports, and airports have their own statutory bodies or regulators. Introducing a new regulatory layer could lead to jurisdictional conflicts. Any expansion of RERA’s scope to infrastructure would require careful calibration to avoid conflicts with other regulatory bodies such as the NHAI and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The challenge is to design the expanded framework so that it complements rather than contradicts existing institutions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is RERA and when was it introduced?
RERA, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, was introduced in 2016 and came into force on May 1, 2017. It aims to bring transparency and accountability to the real estate sector.
Why is RERA not applicable to public infrastructure projects?
RERA is designed for the real estate sector and excludes projects on public land or government contracts that do not involve the sale of individual units to buyers.
What are the benefits of extending RERA to public infrastructure?
Extending RERA to public infrastructure can improve transparency, financial discipline, and project execution, setting quality benchmarks and enhancing public trust.
What are some challenges in extending RERA to public infrastructure?
Challenges include jurisdictional conflicts with existing regulatory bodies, the need for careful calibration, and the complexity of adapting RERA norms to different infrastructure sectors.
Can the RERA model be adapted to different types of infrastructure projects?
Yes, the RERA model can be adapted to different infrastructure projects by setting sector-specific standards and ensuring financial discipline and accountability.
Related News Articles
Real Estate Mumbai
Mumbai Metro 11 Construction: MMRCL Denies Start of Work
Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRCL) denies media reports of starting construction work on Metro 11, citing pending finalization of DPR.
August 19, 2024
Read Article
real estate news
Wave Group to Launch 9,000 Flats in Wave City, Ghaziabad Amid Strong Housing Demand
Wave Group plans to launch 7 million square feet of premium and affordable housing in Wave City, Ghaziabad, with 8,000-9,000 apartments.
September 20, 2024
Read Article
Real Estate
Oasis Lofts: A Revolutionary Real Estate Opportunity in Dubai Silicon Oasis
Oasis Lofts promises to be the next big step in real estate development, redefining residential and investment standards in Dubai Silicon Oasis.
January 13, 2025
Read Article
Real Estate Maharashtra
Omaxe to Invest Rs 28 Billion in Real Estate under New Brand BeTogether
Solar Scheme Enables 2,448 MMR Consumers to Reach Energy Independence. The surge in household solar installations across Maharashtra has significantly transformed the energy landscape, allowing many residents to achieve energy independence.
January 29, 2025
Read Article
Real Estate Pune
Mahindra Logistics Secures 4.75 Lakh Sqft Warehouse in Pune’s Khed for Rs 730 Crore
Mahindra Logistics has leased a massive 4.75 lakh square feet warehouse in Khed, Pune, for Rs 730 crore. This strategic move is part of the company’s expansion plans to strengthen its logistics network in key real estate markets such as Pune and Ahmedabad
February 10, 2025
Read Article
real estate news
Delhi and Bengaluru Rise in Global Luxury Real Estate Rankings, Mumbai Slips
Delhi and Bengaluru have surged in the global luxury real estate rankings, according to Knight Frank's 2023 Wealth Report. Meanwhile, Mumbai has seen a slight dip in its position.
March 5, 2025
Read Article