The Supreme Court’s directive to the CBI to initiate seven preliminary inquiries marks a significant escalation in the crackdown on what it called an “unholy nexus” between real estate developers and banks in Delhi-NCR—an issue that has tormented thousands of homebuyers for nearly a decade.
The court's stern intervention responds to mounting complaints from homebuyers—many of whom booked flats under subvention schemes, wherein developers assured buyers they wouldn’t have to pay EMIs until possession. However, as construction stalled and developers defaulted, banks began coercing buyers to pay EMIs, despite the buyers never receiving possession or even habitable apartments.
Key highlights of the Supreme Court’s order:
-
CBI Preliminary Inquiry 1: Will focus on Supertech Limited, a major developer previously pulled up by courts and regulatory bodies for violations including illegal constructions and defaults.
-
CBI Preliminary Inquiries 2 to 7: Will widen the net to include builders operating in Noida, Greater Noida, Yamuna Expressway, Ghaziabad, and Gurugram, where several similar fraudulent schemes were executed in alleged collusion with banks.
-
The Supreme Court bench—Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh—took strong note of the suffering of homebuyers, stating: "Homebuyers are made to cry. Builders and banks have taken them to ransom." The language underscores the gravity of the systemic abuse.
-
The court accepted a CBI proposal to create a Special Investigation Team (SIT) made up of CBI officials, state police officers from Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, and subject-matter experts.
-
The court has also directed the Reserve Bank of India, state development authorities, and other institutions to appoint nodal officers to fully cooperate with the probe.
This investigation could lead to:
-
Criminal proceedings against developers for cheating and criminal breach of trust;
-
Accountability for bank officials who may have knowingly sanctioned loans in violation of due diligence norms;
-
A re-evaluation of the subvention loan model, which has come under increasing scrutiny for enabling fraudulent financing.
This is a rare but much-needed example of judicial activism aimed at protecting ordinary citizens from a nexus that has long operated with impunity. The real estate crisis in Delhi-NCR—particularly involving ghost projects and stalled developments—has been a structural failure involving builders, financiers, regulators, and state agencies.
