TL;DR: In March 2026, Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha introduced the Asset Tokenisation (Regulation) Bill, 2026 — a Private Member’s Bill. It proposes a legal framework for tokenized real-world assets in India. However, it is not yet law. Private Member’s Bills rarely pass without government backing. Nevertheless, the proposal signals growing parliamentary attention to a space that platforms like Landbitt already operate in today, under existing trust and contract law.
India’s Asset Tokenisation Bill: What MP Raghav Chadha’s Proposal Actually Means
In March 2026, Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha introduced the Asset Tokenisation (Regulation) Bill, 2026 — a real, documented legislative proposal. It is aimed at giving tokenized real-world assets a clear legal framework in India. It’s a genuinely significant moment for the space. But it’s also worth being precise about what it actually is: a proposal, not a law.
What did Raghav Chadha actually propose?
According to his own statements introducing the bill, the goal is straightforward: bring legal recognition, regulatory clarity, and investor protection to tokenized real-world assets — things like real estate, infrastructure, and other physical assets represented digitally on a blockchain. The bill would establish a statutory framework covering the full lifecycle of a tokenized asset. This includes issuance, trading, custody, and settlement. Jurisdiction would be split across existing regulators depending on the asset type. For example, SEBI would handle securities-linked tokens. RBI would handle payment-related tokens, and so on.
The underlying argument is one many people in this space have made for a while: a lot of valuable physical assets in India sit illiquid because there’s no efficient way to sell a portion of them. As a result, tokenization, properly regulated, could let owners access partial liquidity without giving up the whole asset.
What is this bill’s actual legal status right now?
This is the detail that matters most, and it’s worth stating clearly: the Asset Tokenisation (Regulation) Bill, 2026 has been introduced in Parliament — it has not been passed into law. It’s a Private Member’s Bill, meaning Chadha introduced it independently rather than as a government-sponsored bill. In India, Private Member’s Bills rarely become law without government backing. In fact, historically, very few have been enacted at all.
That doesn’t make the bill meaningless. Instead, it puts the issue on the government’s radar and reflects real, growing parliamentary attention to how India should regulate tokenized assets. But anyone telling you this bill is already enacted law, or that it already governs how tokenized real estate works in India today, isn’t describing the situation accurately.
How does this connect to how platforms like Landbitt actually operate today?
Right now, structured real estate participation in India — including tokenized fractional models — operates under existing legal frameworks, not under this proposed bill. Specifically, this typically means a Trust or SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) holds the underlying property. Then investors hold a beneficial interest in that structure, represented through a digital ownership unit. That’s a meaningfully different arrangement from holding “shares in a company.” Moreover, it’s already legally functional under current Indian trust and contract law. It doesn’t require the proposed bill to pass first.
If the Asset Tokenisation Bill eventually does become law, it would likely add a dedicated regulatory framework on top of what already exists. It would not create tokenization from scratch. For more details about the current, real legal structure behind platforms like Landbitt, see our guide on real estate tokenization in India.
Why does this proposal matter, even though it isn’t law yet?
A few genuine reasons, separate from any speculation about prices or timing:
- It signals that lawmakers are paying real attention to a space that’s been operating in a regulatory gray area
- It could eventually clarify jurisdiction questions that currently sit somewhat ambiguously across multiple regulators
- It reflects a broader global trend — other jurisdictions have moved further and faster on tokenized real-world asset regulation, and India formally engaging with the topic is a meaningful, if early, step
What should investors actually take away from this?
Mostly, that regulatory clarity in this space is still developing, and that’s worth factoring into how you evaluate any platform today. A platform’s legitimacy shouldn’t depend on a future bill passing. Instead, it should depend on whether its current legal structure (Trust/SPV documentation, KYC, AML compliance) is genuinely sound right now, under the law as it actually stands. If and when new legislation passes, well-structured platforms are generally better positioned to adapt. Meanwhile, poorly-structured ones aren’t saved by waiting for a law that may take years to materialize, if it does at all.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Asset Tokenisation Bill become law in India?
No. It was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in March 2026 as a Private Member’s Bill. It has not been passed or enacted.
What is a Private Member’s Bill, and why does that matter?
It’s a bill introduced by an individual MP rather than by the government. These rarely become law without government backing, though they can still influence policy discussion and future legislation.
Does this bill currently govern how tokenized real estate works in India?
No. Tokenized real estate platforms currently operate under existing trust and contract law, independent of this proposed bill.
Is real estate tokenization legal in India right now, regardless of this bill?
Yes, when properly structured through a documented Trust or SPV under existing Indian law. The proposed bill would add a dedicated regulatory framework on top of that, not create legal tokenization for the first time.
Should I wait for this bill to pass before investing in tokenized real estate?
That’s a personal decision, but it’s worth knowing that current platforms already operate under existing legal frameworks — a future law, if and when it passes, would likely add clarity rather than retroactively validate or invalidate what’s happening today.
