Social Reservation Under PMAY May End Soon: How IAS Sanjeev Jaiswal Is Recalibrating MHADA’s Housing Strategy

Under the leadership of IAS Sanjeev Jaiswal, MHADA has begun a significant policy rethink that could reshape how Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) homes are sold in Maharashtra. With thousands of PMAY houses lying vacant despite repeated lotteries, MHADA is preparing to abolish social reservation for these homes, aligning its process more closely with Central Government guidelines. The move signals a data-driven correction rather than a rollback of welfare intent, aimed at ensuring homes reach beneficiaries instead of remaining locked and unused.

Why PMAY Homes Are Remaining Unsold

PMAY was conceived as a flagship Central Government programme to provide affordable housing to economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower-income groups (LIG). MHADA’s Konkan Mandal, along with other regional boards, has constructed a large number of PMAY homes in urban and semi-urban areas, distributing them through the MHADA lottery system.

However, recent data shows a growing mismatch between supply and uptake. A significant number of PMAY houses, particularly those falling under social reservation categories, remain vacant even after lotteries, first-priority allotments, and follow-up rounds. Internal estimates indicate that several thousand units under the Konkan Board alone are unsold, despite sustained demand for affordable housing in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

This paradox has forced policymakers to ask a hard question: if the objective is inclusion, but the mechanism is creating bottlenecks, should the mechanism change?

Understanding Social Reservation in MHADA Lotteries

Under the MHADA Act, housing lotteries include reservations across nearly 15 categories. These include social reservations for Scheduled Castes and Neo-Buddhists, Scheduled Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, and Deprived Tribes, in addition to other reserved categories such as journalists, artists, and freedom fighters.

For MHADA housing schemes, these reservations are mandatory and form the backbone of equitable distribution. However, PMAY is a Central Government scheme, and crucially, it does not mandate category-wise social reservation. Instead, it prioritises beneficiaries based on income criteria and housing need.

The complication arises because MHADA sells PMAY homes through its lottery system. As a result, all MHADA lottery rules, including social reservation, have been extended to PMAY houses by default, even though PMAY and MHADA lotteries are technically separate schemes.

The Policy Bottleneck

Current rules allow MHADA to reallocate vacant houses from some reserved categories to the general category if there are no applicants. But this flexibility does not apply to social reservation. Vacant houses reserved for SC, ST, Nomadic Tribes, and Deprived Tribes cannot be transferred to the general pool. They can only be redistributed among these four categories.

In practice, this rigidity has meant that even when there is strong demand in the general or EWS category, homes under social reservation remain unsold due to a lack of eligible applicants in that specific slot. Over time, this has resulted in a growing stock of vacant PMAY homes, locking up public assets and slowing the broader housing mission.

MHADA’s Rationale for Change

MHADA’s current move is rooted in operational realism. Maintaining vacant housing stock carries direct and indirect costs, including maintenance, security, and opportunity cost of blocked capital. More importantly, it undermines the core purpose of PMAY: providing timely housing to those who need it most.

Officials have clarified that the proposal to remove social reservation for PMAY homes is not ideological but structural. Since the Central Government does not prescribe category-wise reservation for PMAY sales, MHADA believes aligning with central norms will improve efficiency without diluting the scheme’s focus on affordability.

Under the proposed approach, PMAY houses would continue to be prioritised for economically weaker sections, but without rigid social reservation slots that have proven difficult to fill in certain regions.

Leadership and Governance Lens

IAS Sanjeev Jaiswal’s approach reflects a broader governance philosophy increasingly visible across MHADA’s recent decisions: measure outcomes, identify friction points, and correct course using evidence. Rather than allowing legacy processes to persist unexamined, MHADA is reassessing whether existing frameworks are delivering results on the ground.

Importantly, MHADA has indicated that a final decision will be taken only after careful verification and policy-level scrutiny. This includes assessing whether social reservation is genuinely required for PMAY homes in the current context and ensuring that any changes remain legally and socially sound.

What This Means for Homebuyers

If implemented, the removal of social reservation for PMAY houses could significantly improve allotment rates and reduce the number of unsold units. For eligible buyers, this may translate into faster access to homes, fewer re-lotteries, and a more predictable distribution process.

For MHADA, it could unlock stalled inventory and redirect administrative focus toward new construction and redevelopment rather than managing vacant stock.

That said, applicants are advised to rely only on verified updates published through MHADA’s official channels. Policy decisions of this nature often attract misinformation, and only official notifications will clarify eligibility criteria and timelines.

A Pragmatic Reset, Not a Retreat

The proposed policy shift should be seen less as a withdrawal of social safeguards and more as a pragmatic reset. When a welfare mechanism inadvertently prevents welfare delivery, reform becomes necessary. By realigning PMAY sales with Central Government rules, MHADA is attempting to balance inclusivity with execution.

As Maharashtra continues to grapple with housing shortages, affordability pressures, and urban expansion, such mid-course corrections will be essential. The success of housing policy will ultimately be measured not by how many rules exist, but by how many doors actually open.