The Supreme Court observed that such investors harm the residential real estate sector and, by extension, the Indian middle class. The court also stressed that the state has a constitutional duty to establish and strictly enforce a framework preventing developers from defrauding or exploiting homebuyers, adding that ensuring timely project completion must be the cornerstone of India’s urban policy. Yogendra Aldak, partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan attorneys, told HT.com that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr., draws a clear distinction between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors in the real estate sector. By characterizing speculative investors as a ‘slow poison,’ the Court has highlighted how their conduct distorts the housing market, clogs insolvency mechanisms, and undermines the rights of end-use homebuyers. The judgment aims to restore faith of genuine homebuyers in the IBC framework by affirming that IBC is not a tool for profit-driven investors for financial recovery and assured returns. The IBC’s primary objective is resolution, not recovery. This judgment reaffirms that IBC was never designed to cater to commercial speculation, it is a resolution-centric framework intended to address genuine financial distress, he said.n a landmark ruling with wide-ranging implications for the real estate sector, the Supreme Court of India has drawn a clear distinction between speculative investors, whom it described as ‘slow poison’, and genuine homebuyers. The court said speculative investors should not be allowed to misuse the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as a recovery tool to seek lucrative returns without any intention of owning a home. Legal experts said that the order ensures that insolvency laws serve their rightful beneficiaries, those who seek homes, not high returns. mportantly, the Court’s recognition that the right to secure timely possession of one’s home is part of Article 21 (Right to Life) is a powerful constitutional affirmation. This reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting middle-class homebuyers who invest life savings with the hope of securing shelter, not speculative profits, he noted.