Supreme court has termed the HIRA law made by West Bengal as null and unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, while terming the West Bengal Housing Laws West Bengal Housing Industries Regulation Act-2017 that is Hira as void, said that the law of the state government is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court said in its important decision that if the Central Government makes a law on a subject, then the State Legislature cannot make laws of equal nature.

Dismissing the state government’s West Bengal Housing Industries Regulation Act 2017, HIRA said that a parallel mechanism has been created in the making of this law and it is inconsistent.

The court said that if the central law is on any subject, the state cannot make such a law. The Supreme Court said that the law of the state government has overlapped the central law and thus by implementing this law, the state legislature has created a parallel system and thus has interfered with the power of Parliament and it is in the power of Parliament There is encroachment.

If seen, the law of the state was not successful in protecting the interests of home buyers and this law is against the RERA law of the Center.

The Supreme Court has repealed the West Bengal Housing Industries Regulation Act (HIRA), 2017, passed in 2017, in place of the Central Law (RERA), 2016 made by West Bengal to regulate the real estate sector. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah has termed the HIRA (law) made by West Bengal as null and unconstitutional.

The bench said in its order, “If the Parliament has enacted a law on a subject, the state cannot make a similar law for the Legislature.

The apex court struck down the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017, stating that it created a parallel mechanism and regime, which is inconsistent.

The apex court said, ‘The state legislature has encroached upon the legislative power of Parliament by implementing a parallel mechanism’.

Also, the Supreme Court has said that the state government’s law has failed to protect the interests of home buyers. The court said that the state law is directly against the central law. Therefore it cannot be sustained.

Exit mobile version