CoC Archives - TheLeagle

IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series – VI | An Overview of the CoC’s Evolving (and Expanding) Role

April 27, 2026 by Rav Singh

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘IBC Act, 2026’) – inter alia – expands role of the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’). The most notable expansion is that the CoC will oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor. This is in addition to the CoC’s existing responsibility to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Further, while the IBC Act, 2026 does not add a specific provision to this effect, it also does not detract from the Supreme Court’s observations in Kalyani Transco v M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd and Others (‘Bhushan Steel case’) where it was held that the CoC will continue to exist until the resolution plan is implemented. Thus, the CoC will play a role even at the stage of implementation of a resolution plan.

The IBC Act, 2026 apart from introducing additional responsibilities for the CoC also introduces one notable obligation. Hereon, the CoC is mandated to record reasons for its approval of the resolution plan under the amended Section 30(4). But curiously, while the CoC has power to recommend liquidation before confirmation of a resolution plan under Section 33(2). This decision to liquidate need not be accompanied by recording of reasons. Parity in both provisions would have been ideal. While recording reasons of approval is not, per se, an onerous obligation it is a step in the right direction. Recorded reasons will ensure transparency in decision making by the CoC. In my view, it will enhance trust in CIRP especially of the unsuccessful resolution applicants. Though courts will have to be careful to not use the recorded reasons to – directly or indirectly – judicially review commercial wisdom of the CoC. Judicial remit must remain limited to examining the CoC’s decisions on the touchstone of legality.

The CoC – since inception – was envisaged as a central actor in CIRP. The IBC Act, 2026 preserves original design of the IBC, but underlines the CoC’s pre-eminent role by assigning it additional responsibilities. This article examines the CoC’s expanded role after the IBC Act, 2026 and various implications that arise from its expanded role. Given the CoC’s multi-faceted role, there are various strands of its working that can be elaborated on, but in the interest of brevity and coherence I’ve chosen only two strands in this article: firstly, the CoC’s obligation to provide reasons for approval of a resolution plan; secondly, the CoC’s power to oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor.

Admittedly, the CoC will also decide if CIRP should be restored and will also have a role – though not clearly delineated – in implementation of the resolution plan. But I’ve examined both these aspects separately in my previous post here and here. So, I will steer clear of both these aspects in this article.

The CoC Must Provide Reasons for Approval of a Resolution Plan

The IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 30(4) which now states that:

The committee of creditors may approve a resolution plan by a vote of not less than sixty-six per cent of voting share of the financial creditors, and record reasons for its approval, after considering its feasibility and viability …. (emphasis added)

As emphasized, the IBC Act, 2026 has added the phrase ‘and record reasons for its approval’. This amendment was not proposed in the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and neither does it find place in Report of the Select Committee on the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (‘Select Committee Report’). Thus, there are no reasons on record as to why the CoC has been mandated to record reasons for its approval of a resolution plan. One possible deduction is that Section 30(4) was amended to improve transparency in the CoC’s decision making. A normative reason is that the IBC’s design is premised on commercial wisdom of the CoC. The CoC is expected to utilize its commercial expertise and take decisions that secure the collective interest of all stakeholders. Thus, mandating the CoC to record reasons for its decisions ensures that the IBC’s premise and expectations of all stakeholders are met and the CoC does not use commercial wisdom as an opaque curtain to prevent accountability of its decisions.

The more proximate reason for the above amendment could be some judicial precedents where the CoC has been specifically mandated to record reasons for its decisions. The most notable case in this respect is Elegna Co-op Housing and Commercial Society Ltd v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (‘Elegna Co-op Housing case’) where the Supreme Court approved the NCLAT’s order directing the CoC to record reasons. The NCLAT had observed that while commercial wisdom of the CoC is not amenable to judicial review, it carries a ‘corresponding duty of responsibility.’ And mandated the CoC to record cogent reasons when it took a non-routine or an extraordinary decision. The NCLAT’s observations were approved by the Supreme Court without any change. While the NCLAT waded into regulatory domain by mandating the CoC to record reasons despite no statutory mandate. However, the NCLAT kept its intrusion limited by mandating recording of reasons only for ‘non-routine’ or ‘extraordinary’ decisions. Amendment to Section 30(4) has created a broader obligation for the CoC to record reasons for its approval and is not limited to only extraordinary decisions.

The statutory mandate to record reasons under Section 30(4) is certainly reconcilable with the doctrine of commercial wisdom of the CoC. The doctrine of commercial wisdom and non-justiciability of the CoC’s decisions apart from attributing business expertise to the CoC also presumes that it will act in a bona fide manner and not take arbitrary decisions. Mandating the CoC to state the reasons for its decisions is a welcome step especially in wake of some recent developments where unsuccessful resolution applicants have challenged rejection of their resolution plans and cast aspersions on the CoC’s intent and decision making. And without recorded reasons it is difficult to know or hold the CoC accountable lending its entire decision making process an unnecessary mystical quality. Finally, though amendment to Section 30(4) is a welcome step, a note of caution is needed. Courts in scrutinizing reasons for the CoC’s decisions, should be careful to not wade into territory of commercial wisdom of the CoC. While the lines between commercial wisdom of the CoC and legality of its decisions are clear in abstract, wherein only latter are subject to judicial review. However, overlaps between commercial and legal aspects can blur in certain situations. Respecting the distinction while facilitating transparency in CIRP is crucial.

Supervising Liquidation: Streamlining Process and Ensuring Continuity from CIRP

The IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 35(2), which now states that:

The committee of creditors shall supervise the conduct of the liquidation process by the liquidator under Chapter III in such manner as may be specified.

The CoC constituted during CIRP will thus now have an extended role in the liquidation process. The CoC will supervise conduct of the liquidator and guide it on all commercial matters. Broadly, the CoC’s role in liquidation is akin to its role vis-à-vis the resolution professional during CIRP but a direct comparison maybe pre-mature as various details about roles of both entities in liquidation are unknown. For now, to strengthen the CoC’s role in the liquidation process and its supervision of the liquidator two crucial changes are worth highlighting:

Firstly, Section 34(4) states that an insolvency resolution professional appointed as resolution professional for CIRP ‘shall not be appointed’ or replaced as the liquidator for liquidation process of the corporate debtor. Section 34, in its previous draft in the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 envisaged that the resolution professional’s appointment as a liquidator shall not be automatic and needs to be approved by the CoC. However, Section 34(4) as finally amended by the IBC Act, 2026 disqualifies a resolution professional from being appointed as a liquidator altogether. The Select Committee Report suggests that various stakeholders had a valid concern that a resolution professional has a ‘perverse incentive’ to favor liquidation over resolution. Since the liquidator gets a percentage of liquidation estate as the liquidator fee. Thus, the Select Committee recommended amendment of Section 34 to state that a resolution professional will be disqualified from being appointed as a liquidator.

Secondly, Section 34A empowers the CoC to replace the liquidator by a vote of not less than sixty-six per cent of the voting share. The CoC must believe the liquidator appointed under Section 34 ‘is required to be replaced.’ The CoC need not provide any specific grounds for removal and replacement of the liquidator. It is unclear if the CoC’s decision to replace a liquidator can be challenged in the NCLT or not. Or will it be swept under the doctrine of commercial wisdom.

Nonetheless, Section 34(4) read with Section 34A ensures that liquidator will be someone who was not involved in CIRP of the corporate debtor. And the liquidator so appointed can be replaced by the CoC if it deems fit. The above changes are to ensure that the liquidator’s incentives are not improperly aligned to secure a higher remuneration. And since the liquidator will be a person not involved in CIRP, it will presumably provide the CoC immense scope and greater leverage to guide the liquidator. And, perhaps, retain the balance of power in its favor.

The IBC Act, 2026 simultaneously favors continuity and disjuncture in liquidation of the corporate debtor. It favors continuity by empowering the CoC to supervise liquidation, which will allow it to apply the learnings from CIRP to liquidation and hopefully maximize value of the corporate debtor’s assets in the entire process. The IBC Act, 2026 favors disjuncture by requiring that a liquidator shall not be a resolution professional involved in CIRP. And to maintain balance between continuity and disjuncture from CIRP, the IBC Act, 2026 has made some additional changes. For example, the IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 35(1)(a) to state that the liquidator shall maintain an updated list of creditors. While previously, the liquidator was required to ‘verify claims of all the creditors’ which would have involved the liquidator initiating the process of verifying claims; a process already undertaken and completed by the resolution professional during CIRP. As the Select Committee noted, this change:

… involves streamlining the claims process and formally extending the role of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to supervise the liquidation. This streamlined approach is intended to avoid repetition of activities conducted during CIRP and expedite the liquidation process. (para 23.6)

Thus, amendments to provisions relating to liquidation are a mix of ensuring continuity and mandating the need for fresh personnel. But overall objective seems to be to streamline the entire process and ensure that liquidation and CIRP are not treated completely independent processes. And some work completed during CIRP can be utilized to expedite liquidation with the larger objective of maximizing the corporate debtor’s assets.

Some stakeholders expressed valid concerns to the Select Committee about the CoC’s powers vis-à-vis the liquidator and that there was uncertainty as to the role of each entity. While Chapter II – dealing with CIRP – delineates the powers and role of the resolution professional in detail especially which decisions require prior approval of the CoC and which can be undertaken by the resolution professional independently. A similar detailed statutory prescription for roles of the liquidator and the CoC is amiss in Chapter III relating to liquidation process despite amendments to Section 34 and insertion of Section 34A. The Select Committee has relied on the assurance of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that concerns of the stakeholders about the CoC’s powers in relation to liquidator will be addressed, but details – for now – are sparse.

Finally, Section 33(2) has also been amended. A proviso has been added to provide statutory basis for the CoC’s powers to directly dissolve a corporate debtor without confirmation of a resolution plan. Previously, even though Section 33(2) did not expressly empower the CoC to directly dissolve the corporate debtor, the NCLT in the matter of Synew Steel Private Limited permitted the CoC to take such a decision. The NCLT’s rationale was that since all assets of the corporate debtor had been realized, liquidation will serve no useful purpose, and it is deemed to have been completed. The Proviso though states that the CoC’s decision to dissolve a corporate debtor will have to comply with specified conditions. Presumably, the intent is to include some safeguards to consider the corporate debtor’s interests, and the relevant conditions may be included in the CIRP Regulations. While dissolution typically follows liquidation as per Section 54. However, where there are no meaningful or recoverable assets, empowering the CoC to directly dissolve the corporate debtor is practical as it may prevent a cumbersome CIRP and liquidation process.

Notably, there is no other change in Section 33(2) wherein the CoC can directly decide to liquidate a corporate debtor before confirmation of a resolution plan. Implying that the CoC is not bound to record reasons for such a decision. While the CoC is – under the amended Section 30(4) – required to record reasons for approval of a resolution plan no similar obligation has been introduced in Section 33(2). This asymmetry is hard to understand. The Supreme Court in Elegna Co-op Housing case approved the NCLAT’s observations which had mandated the CoC to:

Any recommendation for liquidation by the Committee of Creditors shall be accompanied by a reasoned justification recorded in writing, evidencing proper application of mind and due consideration of all viable alternatives, in consonance with the objective of the Code.

While the directions were specific to facts of the case which involved stakes of real estate allottees, need for the CoC to record reasons for liquidation is hard to dispute. Under Section 33(2) where the CoC has been empowered to decide directly in favor of liquidation, recording reasons for it may go a long way in ensuring transparency. And for stakeholders to understand the reasons for not completing CIRP. In fact, a decision to liquidate is at odds with the IBC’s objectives which aims to rescue the corporate debtor. In such a scenario, recorded reasons should reflect as to why the IBC’s stated aims are being sacrificed in favor of liquidation.

The CoC’s power to directly liquidate a corporate debtor instead of completing CIRP is drastic as it may lead to death of the corporate debtor. And, yet the CoC need not provide reasons for such a decision. It is likely, that the CoC’s decision to liquidate a corporate debtor will be based – almost exclusively – on commercial considerations and will be outside the purview of judicial review. However, mandating the CoC to record its reasons would have been ideal and would have ensured parity in its role in CIRP as well as liquidation.

CoC – An Independent Entity with Immense Responsibility

NCLAT in CoC of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd v Riju Ravindran held that the CoC possesses legal character of a juristic person. And it can sue and be sued in its own name. NCLAT observed that while the financial creditors in the CoC have a common objective, they do not have an identical interest since each one of them pursues their interest as per the independent contract they signed with the corporate debtor. NCLAT defined the CoC’s role in following words:

Under the scheme of the IBC, the CoC is conceived as a statutory contrivance, an engine, that runs the entire insolvency resolution process. In another sense CoC is also required to be a statutory conscience keeper, as the responsibility it is enjoined with travels far beyond its preference to protect the financial interest of the members constituting it, since it is also required to secure the interest of every creditor of the corporate debtor besides the corporate debtor itself. (para 8.1) (emphasis added)

In upholding right of the CoC to litigate in its own name, NCLAT underlined that it was a statutory body assigned to take business decisions founded on ground realities which bind all stakeholders. The IBC Act, 2026 has further highlighted and enhanced centrality of the CoC’s role and wide-ranging impact of its business decisions. And the IBC Act, 2026, contemporaneously, has attempted to enhance transparency in the CoC’s decision-making by mandating it to provide reasons for its decision to approve a resolution plan. It may not be an overstatement to conclude that the CoC’s conduct, and decisions will determine the fate and trajectory of CIRP, and in some cases, a timely liquidation of the corporate debtor. An immense responsibility. Thus, once CIRP is triggered, the CoC will expedite or delay the corporate debtor’s journey to the grave, metaphorically or literally.

IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series – V | Ghost of the Rainbow Paper Case: The Parliament Buries an Unnatural Interpretation

April 27, 2026 by Rav Singh

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘IBC Act, 2026’) – inter alia – amends Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’). The amendment is, largely, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Limited (‘Rainbow Papers case’). The Supreme Court in the Rainbow Papers case held that government or a governmental authority could be considered a secured creditor under the IBC. Immediate effect of the Rainbow Papers case was that the government could claim a higher rank as a secured creditor under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) instead of claiming amounts alongside unsecured creditors under Section 53(1)(e). The Rainbow Papers case detracted from the legislative intent to place government at par with unsecured creditors.

The legal position got further entangled when subsequently in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors (‘Raman Ispat case’) the Supreme Court confined decision in the Rainbow Papers case to facts of that case alone. And, also commented that the Supreme Court in the Rainbow Papers case did not adequately examine Section 53 and the waterfall mechanism. This was followed by a review petition where the Supreme Court refused to consider its observations in the Rainbow Papers case. And instead took exception to comments made in the Raman Ispat case. The Supreme Court questioned propriety of a co-ordinate bench commenting on judgment of another bench instead of referring the case to a larger bench and observed:

If a Bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another Bench of equal strength, the only proper course to adopt would be to refer the matter to the larger Bench, for authoritative decision, otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by reason of conflicting decisions. (para 20)

Unsurprisingly, the law was ‘thrown’ into uncertainty after the above set of events.

The Rainbow Papers case, the Raman Ispat case, and the Supreme Court’s observations in the review petitions meant that position of government as secured creditor was both valid and under scrutiny. And certainty was an enemy. The Rainbow Papers case could be relied on as a binding precedent or plausibly be confined only to facts of the particular case depending on proclivities of the stakeholders involved. It is to rectify this unwelcome legal position that the IBC Act, 2026 inserted an Explanation to Section 53(1)(e) to clarify that amounts due to the Central Government and the State Government shall be distributed under that sub-clause. Thereby, placing the government at par with unsecured creditors and undoing ratio of the Rainbow Papers case. However, I conclude that the amendment to Section 53 may not completely eliminate effect of the Rainbow Papers case. I suggest that one of the Supreme Court’s observations in the Rainbow Papers case: tax claims should be necessarily part of the resolution plan, still survives the IBC Act, 2026.

In this article, I provide a descriptive context and background that necessitated the amendment to Section 53 effectuated by the IBC Act, 2026. I begin by elaborating on the rationale that underpinned the Rainbow Papers case, the discomforts it caused, and limits of the amendment made to Section 53 by the IBC Act, 2026.

The Rainbow Papers Case and its Aftermath

In the Rainbow Papers case, the Supreme Court had to answer the question that whether Section 53 of the IBC overrides Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘GVAT Act, 2003’). The latter stated that:

48. Tax to be first charge on property.—

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any amount payable by a dealer or any other person on account of tax, interest or penalty for which he is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such dealer, or as the case maybe, such person.

Similarly, Section 53 of the IBC begins with a non-obstante clause and provides for distribution of assets ‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law …’.

To begin with, the Supreme Court condoned delay by the tax department in filing its claim by reasoning that timelines under the IBC are directory. And even if the claim was not filed before the deadline announced by the resolution professional, it was incumbent on the resolution professional to revise the admitted claims once he came across additional information – relating to outstanding tax claims – warranting such revision.

The second issue was about the States’ status as a secured creditor. The State’s argument was that definition of secured creditor under Section 3(30) read with definition of security interest under Section 3(31) was wide enough to include a statutory charge such as under Section 48 of the GVAT Act, 2003. The Supreme Court accepted the State’s argument and held that the latter was not contrary to the IBC and:

Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority. (para 57)

And thus, the Supreme Court concluded that debts owed to the State under the GVAT Act, 2003 were to rank equally with other debts owed to a secured creditor under Section 53(1)(b)(ii). The Supreme Court’s conclusion was based on the definition of security under Section 3(31) which does not exclude a statutory charge as well as the definition of secured creditor which does not exclude the State. The Supreme Court was also influenced by the fact that the impugned resolution plan completely ignored tax dues owed by the corporate debtor to the State and it questioned the validity of a resolution plan that did not incorporate tax dues.

In some of the subsequent decisions, the Rainbow Papers case was sought to be limited to its facts. For example, in Department of State Tax v Ashish Chhawchharia Resolution Professional for Jet Airways (India) Ltd & Anr (October 2022), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT) had to engage with the question if Department of State Tax was a secured creditor. The NCLAT examined Section 82 of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 which provided that the tax payable shall be first charge on the property of taxpayer, except as provided in the IBC. Thus, in view of the specific exception wherein the IBC triumphed the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017 the NCLAT found the Rainbow Papers case to be inapplicable in the impugned case.

The most notable example of limiting effect of the Rainbow Papers case only to facts of that case was in the Raman Ispat case. In this case, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (‘PVVNL’) relied on non-obstante clause in the Electricity Act, 2003, relevant clauses of agreement entered to between PVVNL and the corporate debtor, and the Rainbow Papers case to claim priority in liquidation proceedings. PVVNL claimed that it was a statutory corporation and dues owed to it amounted to dues owed to the State. The Supreme Court disallowed its claim and also expressed its disagreement with the Rainbow Papers case by observing that:

The careful design of Section 53 locates amounts payable to secured creditors and workmen at the second place, after the costs and expenses of the liquidator payable during the liquidation proceedings. However, the dues payable to the government are placed much below those of secured creditors and even unsecured and operational creditors. (para 49)

The Supreme Court in the Raman Ispat case further held that observations in the Rainbow Paper case must be confined to facts of that case. Thus, creating an uncertain legal position wherein two benches of the Supreme Court – of equal strength – took diametrically opposite positions in so far priority to be accorded to government dues under Section 53. In the absence of a reference to a larger bench, the only plausible way of reconciling the two judgments was to deduce that the Rainbow Papers case was be applicable only in cases where provisions like Section 48, GVAT Act, 2003 were applicable. While in other cases the Raman Ispat case had a more persuasive value. Irrespective of this reconciliation, the legal situation was far from satisfactory.

Limitations of the Rainbow Papers Case

The dissatisfactory legal situation was rooted in the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Rainbow Papers case which suffered from a few obvious limitations. To begin with, one can argue that since Section 53(1)(e) was a separate category for the amounts due to the Central Government and the State Government, the legislative intent was straightforward: all dues owed to the government were to be classified in that category. And while the definition of security interest and secured creditor did not explicitly exclude the government, reliance on definitions was not conclusive that the government can be a secured creditor. The relevant definitions should have ideally been read with Section 53, which would have pointed towards the government not being a secured creditor. A harmonious interpretation of the relevant statutory definitions with the design of waterfall mechanism under Section 53 was missing from the Rainbow Papers case.

Another aspect that the Supreme Court overlooked in the Rainbow Papers case was the distinction between a voluntary charge and a statutory charge. Generally, a secured creditor acquires its status because of a voluntary commercial transaction with the corporate debtor. However, the government – especially in the Rainbow Papers case – was claiming status of a secured creditor based on a statutory provision. Equating the government to a secured creditor based on a statutory provision removes element of voluntariness of the corporate debtor and provides the government an easy way to claim status of a secured creditor by adopting similar provisions in existing and future laws. Equating an involuntary charge on property with a charge created by voluntary transaction –disrupted one of the IBC’s aims. The aim, in this context, was to give priority to private secured creditors who undertook the risk of lending capital to the corporate debtor. The waterfall mechanism under Section 53 recognizes the risk undertaken to incentivize similar transactions in the future and help development of the credit market.

Also, another one of the IBC’s aims, as mentioned in the Preamble is to alter ‘priority of payment of Government dues.’ The lowering of priority of the government’s dues is justifiable on various counts with the primary one being that the government has other avenues to recover money including levy of taxes from financial robust corporates among other taxpayers. Relevance of the IBC’s aim of lowering ranking of the government dues was missing in the Rainbow Papers judgment. And a purposive interpretation of Section 53 would have led the Supreme Court to the conclusion that the government cannot rank high as a secured creditor under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) but should remain confined to Section 53(1)(e) as an unsecured creditor.

Overall, the Rainbow Papers had weak legs to stand on. The Supreme Court by focusing only on the definition of security interest and secured creditor did not do ample justice to other relevant provisions of the IBC. And, resultantly upset important aims of the IBC, created disharmony amongst the various provisions including between the various categories enumerated for waterfall mechanism under Section 53.

The IBC Act, 2026 Amends Section 53

To rectify the above legal position, the IBC Act, 2026 inserts an Explanation to Section 53(1)(e)(i) which states that:

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any amount, whether or not a security interest is created to secure such amount by an act of two or more parties or merely by operation of law, due to the Central Government and the State Government, in respect of the whole or any part of the period of two years preceding the liquidation commencement date, shall be distributed under this sub-clause and any remaining amount, whether or not such security interest is created to secure the amount, due to the Central Government and the State Government, shall be distributed under clause (f);”; (emphasis added)

The Explanation intends to clarify that a security interest created through a voluntary contractual arrangement or by a statutory provision stands on the same footing in so far as the government is concerned. Irrespective of the mode, dues to the Central Government and the State Government are to be paid under Section 53(1)(e)(i) or Section 53(f). But, not under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) as interpreted in the Rainbow Papers case.

The Rainbow Papers case unleased a flurry of opinions if the ‘crown debt’ should be given priority over private creditors. There are circumstances where the government’s claims can be accorded priority, but my view is that it should flow from the statutory provisions and not judicial innovation. Amendment via the IBC Act, 2026 clearly re-establishes that the Parliament does not wish to accord priority to the government’s claims. The IBC Act, 2026 clarifies that even if relevant statutory provisions provide that the government shall have first charge and thereby status of a secured creditor vis-à-vis unpaid debts, the ranking of Section 53 shall determine the order of payment. And not any other relevant statutory provision. Thus, irrespective if the provision of tax law or otherwise results in the government being a secured operational creditor, it cannot be placed alongside other private secured creditors under Section 53(1)(b)(ii). The government’s dues are to be paid under Section 53(1)(e).

Sliver of the Rainbow Papers Case May Survive

If we confine ourselves to one aspect of the Rainbow Papers case discussed above, then the Explanation added by the IBC Act, 2026 undoubtedly negates its ratio. However, in the Rainbow Papers case, the Supreme Court also made another crucial observation: legality of an approved resolution plan. The Supreme Court observed that the NCLT should not approve a resolution plan under Section 31(2) that did not conform to requirements mentioned in Section 31(1). And, concluded that:

If the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a legal authority, altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution Plan. (para 52)

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 31 onus is on the NCLT to examine if a resolution plan meets the requirements enlisted in Section 30(2). The relevant parameter under Section 30(2)(b) – in respect of government’s dues – is that a resolution plan must provide for payment of debts of operational creditors. However, if an operational creditor fails to submit their claim to the resolution professional, it stands to reason that their claim is extinguished on approval of the resolution plan. However, implication of the Supreme Court’s above observations in the Rainbow Papers case, in my view, is that unless statutory demands such as tax dues are necessarily incorporated in the resolution plan the NCLT must decline to approve it. Irrespective of whether such claims were submitted within the deadline to the resolution professional. However, amendments to Section 30 and Section 53 via the IBC Act, 2026 do not address this aspect of the Rainbow Papers case. However, one could argue that the contemporaneous amendments made to Section 31 – to underline scope of the clean slate doctrine – do negate the above observation. But, given the history of uncertainty about scope of the clean slate doctrine, one can never be sure. In my view, amendment to Section 53 read with amendment to Section 31 do effectively dilute the above observation made in the Rainbow Papers case. But, there is still possibility of a sliver of ratio to survive by making a case that a resolution plan that does not contain pending tax claims cannot be legally approved by the NCLT under Section 31.

To conclude, amendments to the IBC via the IBC Act, 2026 convincingly negate ratio of the Rainbow Papers case in so far as it relates to the interpretation of waterfall mechanism under Section 53. And ensures that the government claims it tax dues only under Section 53(1)(e)(i). It is a welcome amendment and ensures that the chaos and uncertainty unleased by the Rainbow Papers case is tamed. However, a statutory amendment is always subject to another judicial ‘innovation’ that frequently erupts in the IBC landscape. Though the scope for such an innovation has been sufficiently narrowed by the IBC Act, 2026.

IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series – III | Restoring CIRP under the IBC: A New Portal Opens

April 20, 2026 by Rav Singh

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘IBC Act, 2026’) amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) and empowers the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) to restore Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) before passing an order for liquidation of the corporate debtor. Previously, under Section 31(1) of the IBC, the NCLT could pass an order of liquidation if: (a) it did not receive a resolution plan within the stipulated time; or (b) if the NCLT rejected a resolution plan under Section 31 for failure to meet compliance requirements. Thus, if CIRP failed due to either of two reasons the NCLT’s only option was to order liquidation of the corporate debtor. The IBC Act, 2026 provides for restoration of CIRP via insertion of sub-section (1A) to Section 33 which states that:

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the grounds mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section exist, it shall, before passing the liquidation order, consider an application made by the committee of creditors, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be specified, by not less than sixty-six per cent. of the voting share, for restoring the corporate insolvency resolution process… (emphasis added)

The above sub-section substantially alters the IBC’s original design wherein on CIRP’s failure, liquidation of corporate debtor was the sole option. Even though Section 33(1B) states that an order for restoration of CIRP can be passed only once, the option of restoring CIRP accompanies its own set of challenges. Foremost, option of restoring CIRP creates possibility of ‘repeated loops.’ Until now, there is one notable precedent – Chitra Sharma and Ors v Union of India and Ors (‘Chitra Sharma case’) – wherein the Supreme Court restored CIRP in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. While the Chitra Sharma case is not squarely comparable to Section 33(1A), it provides context and reasons as to why in some cases CIRP can be restored.

Accordingly, this article is divided into two parts: the first part provides relevant details about the Chitra Sharma case and reasons for the Supreme Court’s exceptional order of restoring CIRP; the second part catalogues some of the challenges that accompany introduction of Section 33(1A) and the consequences that may follow from such a legislative choice. This article concludes that while there are some persuasive reasons for restoring CIRP; for example, the corporate debtor retains value or if there is renewed interest from certain investors. However, overall functioning of the IBC – where time limits are frequently breached – does not lend much confidence that restoration of CIRP will meet its intended objectives of rescuing the corporate debtor in a timely fashion. In fact, the option of restoring CIRP may reduce the overall efficacy of CIRP.

A Notable Instance for Restoring CIRP

The most notable instance of restoring CIRP was in the Chitra Sharma case. Home buyers, in projects floated by Jaypee Infratech Ltd (‘JIL’), filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking protection of their interests. Home buyers approached the Supreme Court because in CIRP against JIL, they were not allowed to file their claims either as financial or operational creditors. Because the IBC, as it existed then, did not recognize home buyers are stakeholders in CIRP. Home buyers challenged various provisions of the IBC wherein they were not recognized as a stakeholder in CIRP and requested the Supreme Court to protect their interests.

The Supreme Court encountered a situation wherein no successful resolution applicant was found through CIRP. Thus, as per the IBC only other option was to order liquidation of JIL under Section 33. However, the Supreme Court noted that all stakeholders were of the view that liquidation of JIL will not ‘subserve the interests of the home buyers.’ Thus, the Supreme Court was faced with the task of balancing interests of home buyers and respecting discipline of the IBC. Latter demanded ordering a timely liquidation of JIL since CIRP had not yielded a successful resolution applicant. While serving interests of the home buyers meant opting for a solution which would provide them possession of their intended houses. It was in the backdrop of these facts that the Supreme Court in the Chitra Sharma case ordered that:

… the power under Article 142 should be utilised at the present stage for the limited purpose of recommencing the resolution process afresh from the stage of appointment of IRP by the order dated 9 August 2017 and resultantly renew the period which has been prescribed for the completion of the resolution process. (para 39)

The Supreme Court’s main reason for restoring CIRP in the Chitra Sharma case was that in initial CIRP, home buyers did not have the status of a financial creditor under the IBC. And were unable to participate in CIRP. While in the intervening period, amendments to the IBC – specifically amendment to Section 5(8) – had accorded home buyers the status of financial creditors. Thus, the Supreme Court ordered restoration of CIRP and reasoned that reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as per amended provisions of the IBC will protect interests of home buyers as they will be able to participate in CIRP in their capacity of financial creditors. Another reason why the Supreme Court chose to restore CIRP was that the other options of providing another opportunity to erstwhile promoters of JIL or the Supreme Court appointing a committee to oversee the resolution process were not found to be viable. Overall, lack of any successful resolution applicant, intent to provide homes to home buyers, and a change in legal position of home buyers under the IBC cumulatively influenced the Supreme Court’s decision to restore CIRP.

Until now, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Chitra Sharma case remains an exceptional decision because it mandated restoration of CIRP to complete justice. And such a remedy could only be provided by the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Neither the NCLT nor the NCLAT possessed the power to order restoration of CIRP under the IBC. Though ironically, the Supreme Court invoked discipline of the IBC to provide this remedy to the home buyers, even though the IBC did not envisage restoration of CIRP. Though this legal position has been altered by the IBC Act, 2026.

Restoring CIRP: A Catalogue of Challenges and Consequences

Firstly, Section 33(1A) opens possibility for the NCLT to delve into commercial aspects of CIRP. Under the IBC, the NCLT is expected to perform only a supervisory role while all commercial decisions are the CoC’s remit and non-justiciable. However, Section 33(1A) does not clearly earmark the NCLT’s remit and leaves door ajar for the NCLT to review commercial wisdom of the CoC. Three aspects of Section 33(1A) point towards this possibility: firstly, Section 33(1A) states that the NCLT ‘shall’ consider the CoC’s application for restoration and after its consideration it ‘may’ order restoration of CIRP; secondly, the CoC can only file an application for restoration before the NCLT if it is approved by sixty-six per cent of the votes; thirdly, Section 33(1A) merely states that the NCLT shall order restoration of CIRP in such manner and ‘subject to such conditions as may be specified’. Thus, we currently do not know of the conditions and factors that the NCLT needs to consider before ordering restoration of CIRP.

The use of both ‘shall’ and ‘may’ at different places in Section 33(1A) indicates that the NCLT is bound to decide the CoC’s application but not obligated to order restoration of CIRP. Thus, if the NCLT rejects the CoC’s application for restoration it can amount to judicial review of commercial wisdom of the CoC. Because the CoC is required to vote in favor of restoration before seeking the NCLT’s approval. The CoC’s decision for restoration of CIRP is likely to be based on commercial considerations such as change in value of the corporate debtor, new market conditions, investor interest and other such similar factors. Even if one accepts that the doctrine of commercial wisdom is applicable to Section 33(1A) it implies that the NCLT shall examine the CoC’s decision of restoration of CIRP on the touchstone of legality. However, no specific parameters are prescribed for judicial review under Section 33(1A). If ‘subject to such conditions as may be prescribed’ implies that substantive parameters will be mentioned in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (‘CIRP Regulations’), then it is not the ideal way to approach legislative drafting on such crucial issues. And if the CIRP Regulations will only prescribe procedural parameters, then scope for judicial review of commercial wisdom of the CoC remains open. To compare, under Section 31 the NCLT examines the CoC’s approval of a resolution plan, but the touchstone of judicial review is requirements specified in Section 30(2). Not only are those kinds of parameters currently absent from the IBC in relation to Section 33(1A); it is my view that prescribing a list of objective parameters may prove to be difficult in relation to restoration of CIRP. This is because restoration of CIRP is likely to be a fact-based commercial decision with few legalities involved. Perhaps, this is one reason no legal parameters have been included in Section 33(1A) and the Parliament has kicked the onus of identifying the relevant factors into domain of secondary legislation. Thus, once the CoC votes in favor of restoration of CIRP, the NCLT’s review of the CoC’s decision can wade into commercial wisdom and absence of statutory guardrails increases such a possibility.

Further, Section 33(1A) impliedly endorses the idea that procedural mistakes, failure to meet timelines, and other related omissions during CIRP are curable defects. The mistakes, omissions, and delays are generally attributable to the CoC, resolution professionals, NCLT/NCLAT, and that certain legal aspects of the IBC are unclear. However, permitting restoration of CIRP signals that previous omissions or oversights in following the IBC’s procedures do not lead to the fatal result of liquidation. When there is scope to redo the entire CIRP, it does not incentivize the CoC and/or the resolution professional to adhere to all CIRP procedures and timelines scrupulously. I’ve argued in my previous post that the NCLT sending resolution plans back to the CoC for reconsideration prevents accountability for the latter’s inability to perform its statutory duty. Section 33(1A), in part, reinforces the CoC’s lack of accountability for its failure to meet the statutory obligations in pursuit of the IBC’s aim of rescuing the corporate debtor.

While the Supreme Court, in CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, has held that timelines under the IBC are directory. However, not adhering to timelines defeats the IBC’s purpose of preserving value of corporate debtor’s assets and the endeavor must be to respect the timelines. By permitting restoration of CIRP under Section 33(1A), the timelines will undoubtedly get extended and corporate debtor’s assets may lose value. Admittedly, the choice for restoration involves a trade-off: rescuing the corporate debtor instead of liquidating it; but the cost of delayed liquidation if the restored CIRP also fails will be much higher as compared to a timely liquidation. The legislative choice seems to be clear: rescue of corporate debtor is preferred over a delay liquidation and probable loss of asset value.

Further, most CIRPs under the IBC are besieged with the challenge of timely completion. The NCLT admitting a CIRP, approvals by the CoC, and subsequent approvals by the NCLT of a resolution plan, appeals before the NCLAT and the Supreme Court cumulatively add to delays in CIRP since each step is time consuming. And all the steps of CIRP are rarely completed within the one hundred- and eighty-days’ time prescribed under Section 12 of the IBC. In a scenario where delays are commonplace and CIRP continues for an extended time, creating an option for restoration of CIRP hardly invokes confidence that the restored CIRP will be completed in time. Section 33(1A)(b) states that a restored CIRP shall be completed within one hundred and twenty days. It is not far-fetched to presume that if the time under Section 12 is directory, then the time under Section 33(1A)(b) is also directory. And if the time under Section 12 is not respected in various CIRPs, then a similar scene is likely to be witnessed for a restored CIRP. All material factors that contributed to delay in CIRP will also affect the restored CIRP.

Section 33(1A) also privileges rescue of the corporate debtor over various other aspects of the IBC such as need to complete CIRP in a timely fashion, preservation of assets of the corporate debtor, as well as preventing undue and prolonged uncertainty. Admittedly, the IBC’s aim – as exemplified in its Preamble – is to rescue the corporate debtor and not liquidate it. However, the attempts at rescue need to be defined by time and underlined by certainty. CIRP-related procedures, in so far as possible, should move in a linear direction and any back and forth should be minimal. The discipline of a linear direction makes the relevant entities more mindful of their roles and responsibilities. Creating statutory basis for restoring CIRP opens the possibility of first attempts in CIRP being sub-par. While it is in the CoC’s collective interest to be mindful of CIRP related processes from the beginning, the option of re-attempting leaves room to be lax about the procedural and substantive legal requirements. And that does not bode well for an efficacious CIRP.

Finally, the Select Committee on the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (‘Select Committee’) seems to have endorsed the idea that restoration of CIRP is also possible if there is failure in implementation of the resolution plan. Technically speaking, failure in implementation of the resolution plan is a failure of CIRP. However, restoring CIRP due to implementation of the resolution plan going off rails implies smoothening a collective failure of the CoC, implementation committee, and the resolution applicant. In SBI v The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan, the Supreme Court ordered liquidation when implementation of a resolution plan faced undue delays instead of trying to make another attempt at rescuing the corporate debtor. Restoring CIRP after failure in implementation of the resolution plan has the potential for efforts to rescue the corporate debtor to continue for a duration much beyond originally envisaged in the IBC. On balance, timely liquidation may still lead to better results in terms of releasing stuck capital, providing certainty, and bringing a closure for various stakeholders as opposed to delaying liquidation due to repeated efforts at rescuing the corporate debtor.

Conclusion

The Select Committee was optimistic that restoration of CIRP will achieve its objective and noted that:

The Committee find merit in the Ministry’s submission that this provision serves as a final opportunity to rescue the corporate debtor in genuine cases, subject to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (66% voting share) and the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority, with a strict timeline of 120 days. (para 20.6.1)

The Select Committee’s optimism is on three aspects: (a) restoring CIRP will remain confined to genuine cases, and that such cases are easy to detect and distinguish from non-genuine cases; (b) commercial wisdom of the CoC will work seamlessly with the NCLT’s discretion, though deference to the CoC’s wisdom is better respected by providing the NCLT limited discretion; (c) the timeline of one hundred and twenty days for restored CIRP is ‘strict’ and will be followed scrupulously. To conclude succinctly, I do not share the Select Committee’s optimism on all three counts. Section 33(1A) – even if CIRP Regulations enumerate legal parameters for the NCLT to consider – is likely to be another breeding ground of litigation and uncertainty. And both will militate against the IBC’s core objectives.

IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series – II | CoC’s Role in the IBC: A Case for Greater Legislative Clarity

April 21, 2026April 14, 2026 by Rav Singh

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) provides the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) a central role in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings (‘CIRP’). The IBC prescribes the CoC’s role in broad terms and specific boundaries are still being delineated through judicial decisions. For example, while courts have consistently endorsed that commercial wisdom of the CoC is non-justiciable, precise extent of judicial oversight over the CoC’s decisions remains uncertain. This article focuses on two aspects of the CoC’s working that have emerged exclusively by judicial innovation and examines whether The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘IBC Act, 2026’) succeeds in its attempt to provide them a statutory basis.

Firstly, the IBC did not expressly confer authority on the NCLT to refer resolution plans back to the CoC for reconsideration. Previously, Section 31 of the IBC provided a binary option to the NCLT: approve or reject a resolution plan. Equally, neither Section 61 nor Section 62 of the IBC envisaged that the NCLAT or the Supreme Court can mandate the CoC to reconsider resolution plans. And yet resolution plans were often sent to the CoC for re-examination on various grounds enunciated by the Supreme Court. The IBC Act, 2026 amends the IBC to empower the NCLT to return a resolution plan. The IBC Act, 2026 has inserted a proviso to Section 31(2) and empowered the NCLT to give notice to the CoC ‘to rectify any defects in the resolution plan’ before rejecting the resolution plan. Notes on clauses to the IBC Bill, 2025 – which is pari materia to the IBC Act, 2026 – clarified that the NCLT should provide an opportunity to the CoC when defects are ‘procedural, non-material’ and can be rectified by the CoC. But use of ‘any’ in the proviso, prima facie, provides the NCLT broad powers contrary to intent expressed in notes on clauses.

Secondly, the IBC’s silence ‘as regards the phase of implementation’ of the resolution plan was noted by the Supreme Court in SBI v The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan (‘Jet Airways case’). To overcome the IBC’s silence, the Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd and Others (‘Bhushan Steel case’) held that the CoC is not functus officio after the NCLT approves the resolution plan. The Supreme Court added that since the CoC has a vital interest in implementation of the resolution plan it will continue to exist until the resolution plan is implemented, or an order of liquidation is passed by the NCLT. The IBC Act, 2026 – to correct statutory oversight on implementation of the resolution plan – proposes to replace Section 30(2)(d) to state that every resolution plan must necessarily provide for constitution of a committee to implement and supervise the resolution plan. I suggest that the IBC Act, 2026 should have ideally clarified role of the CoC vis-à-vis implementation committee. And only left other procedural details for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (‘CIRP Regulations’). Else, implementation phase of the resolution plan may face further uncertainties about role of the CoC. Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhushan Steel case and the IBC Act, 2026 together ensure that the CoC and the implementation committee will co-exist during implementation of the resolution plan. How will the two entities interact? Will the implementation committee operate under supervision of the CoC? Clarity on these procedural aspects may emerge from the CIRP Regulations. But it was vital that the statute provided, in clear terms, the CoC’s role during implementation of the resolution plan.

The IBC Act, 2026 has missed an opportunity to provide legislative clarity on both the above aspects. And leaves ample room for ad hoc judicial solutions that may hamper timely completion of CIRP.

Reconsideration of a Resolution Plan by the CoC

The Supreme Court in CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors (‘Essar case’) correctly held that while the NCLT cannot interfere with commercial decision of the CoC, it can exercise judicial review if the CoC has not taken into account key features of the IBC. For example, the NCLT is permitted to examine if a resolution plan approved by the CoC maximises the value of corporate debtor’s assets and balances the interests of all stakeholders. However, the Supreme Courts’ conclusion that the NCLT can send back a resolution plan to the CoC if key features of the IBC are amiss in a resolution plan is not supported by a plain reading of Section 31 of the IBC.

Section 31(1) of the IBC states that the NCLT, ‘shall’ by order approve the resolution plan if it is satisfied that the resolution plan approved by the CoC meets requirements enlisted in Section 30(2). And if the resolution plan does not conform to above stated requirements, the NCLT under Section 31(2) ‘may’ by an order reject the resolution plan. I suggest that interpreting may as directory in this context defeats the IBC’s objective of completing CIRP in a time bound manner. Under Section 31, the NCLT must determine if the resolution plan approved by the CoC satisfies the requirements enlisted under Section 30(2). If the answer is in affirmative, the NCLT must approve the resolution plan or else reject it. The NCLT directing the CoC to reconsider the resolution plan instead of rejecting it, expands time required for CIRP and defeats the aim of maximising the value of corporate debtor’s assets. One can argue that if the prescribed time limit for CIRP has not expired, the NCLT can send the resolution plan to the CoC for reconsideration. But, silence of Section 31 about grounds on which the NCLT ‘may’ send the resolution plan to the CoC for reconsideration suggests that such a possibility was not contemplated by the legislature. The Supreme Court, instead of paying attention to silence of Section 31 on powers of the NCLT to send back resolution plan has created its own parameters to permit reconsideration by the CoC. A legal position that suffers from multiple frailties.

The Supreme Court has bifurcated judicial role vis-à-vis the CoC in two spheres: commercial decisions of the CoC and legality of resolution plans under the IBC. In Essar case and later in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Ltd. the Supreme Court reiterated that the NCLT’s jurisdiction in approving the resolution plan cannot extend to altering commercial terms of the resolution plan. But in both cases, the Supreme Court observed that the NCLT can send the resolution plan back to the CoC for re-submission if key parameters of the IBC were amiss – such as those listed in Section 30(2) of the IBC. In both cases, flaw in the Supreme Court’s approach was in equating the NCLT’s power to review legality of the resolution plan with the power to send back resolution plan to the CoC. Section 31 empowers the NCLT with only the former and envisages a rejection of the resolution plan on failure to meet the parameters of Section 30(2). The Supreme Court by equating scope of the NCLT’s judicial review with power to send back resolution plan committed judicial overreach and introduced an additional step in CIRP which contributes to delay in its timely completion.

Equally, the Supreme Court has not canalized the grounds on which the NCLT can send back the resolution plan. The NCLAT and the Supreme Court – have sent resolution plans for reconsideration on various grounds. Resolution plans have been returned for not providing that dissenting financial creditors must be paid in cash, the resolution professional wrongly rejecting the claim of financial creditor, and that dissenting financial creditors were paid less than stipulated under Section 30(2)(b). The various grounds have emerged from fact situations and are not framed within any judicial doctrine on the NCLT’s powers of approval of the resolution plan. The NCLT/NCLAT/Supreme Court while sending back resolution plans have reasoned that only the CoC can amend commercial aspects of the resolution plan but have overlooked if they possess the power to send back the resolution plan. In fact, common link in the above-mentioned decisions is that in none of them any judicial forum has examined the legislative intent or text of Section 31 to determine if it permits the CoC to reconsider an approved resolution plan. The IBC Act, 2026 attempts to alter the legislative intent underlying Section 31 to this end but suffers from shortcomings.

Notes on clauses to the IBC Bill, 2025 indicate that the NCLT must send back resolution plans only if defects are procedural, non-material and can be rectified by the CoC. To begin with, there is an erroneous presumption that substantive and procedural defects are neatly distinguishable categories in CIRP. None of the judicial decisions that have mandated reconsideration of resolution plan by the CoC have identified factors to distinguish substantive defect from a procedural defect. Even presuming that a clear categorization is possible, identifying the category of defect will require further judicial exercise, and create another layer of uncertainty about scope of the NCLT’s power. Not to mention that despite the legislative intent being to limit the NCLT’s power to only procedural defects, the proposed proviso mentions ‘any’ defect. An example of legislative drafting – prima facie – betraying the stated legislative intent.

Further, the change to Section 31 proposed by the IBC Act, 2026 also prevents accountability of the CoC for its decisions. The commercial aspects of a resolution plan are beyond judicial purview because the IBC presumes that it is the CoC that possesses business expertise and not judicial forums. But the CoC, is obligated to make commercial decisions as per the IBC’s mandate. For example, the CoC must vote on the resolution plan after considering the parameters enlisted in Section 30(2) and obey the mandate of Section 30(4). Thus, if the CoC approves the resolution plan that contravenes clearly enlisted parameters in Section 30(2) or Section 30(4); prima facie, the CoC has committed a dereliction of its duty. And if the NCLT simply sends back a resolution plan – previously approved by the CoC – for reconsideration without any penalty or meaningful legal consequence for the CoC, it avoids accountability for its failure to discharge a statutory duty. The Supreme Court, in Jet Airways case, suggested that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India should explore the enforcement of standards in Guidelines for the CoC instead of making them self-regulatory to ‘prevent any significant lapse in decision making on the part of the CoC.’ The legal mandate must move towards greater accountability for the CoC instead of the opposite direction.

Finally, the IBC Act, 2026 suffers from a contradiction in so far as it imagines role of the NCLT in CIRP. While the IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 7 to circumscribe the NCLT’s jurisdiction and expedite CIRP, it does the opposite as regards Section 31. The IBC Act, 2026 proposes to add Explanation 1 to Section 7 wherein if the NCLT is satisfied as to the existence of a default, is sure that the application is complete and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed resolution professional, it shall admit the CIRP application. Else reject it. The NCLT is not required to inquire into any other factor. Narrowing the NCLT’s jurisdiction under Section 7 is to expedite admission of the CIRP application if default by corporate debtor is proved. On the other hand, the NCLT is being permitted to send back the resolution plan by inserting a proviso in Section 31(2) to that effect. Thereby providing statutory basis to a judicial practice that is already contributing to delays in CIRP. The amendment to Section 31 may negate the amendment to Section 7 in so far as expediting CIRP is concerned.

The CoC’s Uncertain Role in Implementation of the Resolution Plan

The IBC is silent on the CoC’s role in implementation of the resolution plan. This is evident in the IBC not providing any specific role and functions for the CoC once the resolution plan is approved by the NCLT. For example, if the NCLT has approved a resolution plan, then under Section 33(3) of the IBC any person – other than the corporate debtor – aggrieved by contravention of the approved resolution plan may make an application to the NCLT for liquidation. And Section 33(4) states that if the NCLT determines that a corporate debtor has contravened provisions of the resolution plan it may pass an order of liquidation. There is no express requirement of seeking the permission or even opinion of the CoC before passing the liquidation order. The CoC’s approval for liquidation by sixty-six per cent voting share is needed only if the resolution plan has not been confirmed by the NCLT, i.e., before its implementation begins. Section 33(3) read with 33(4) reveal the CoC’s minimal role during implementation of the resolution plan.

The lack of any specific role for the CoC during implementation of the resolution plan came to fore in Jet Airways case and Bhushan Steel case. In Jet Airways case, the Supreme Court suggested a monitoring committee for implementation of an approved resolution plan. And that it should consist of resolution professional, nominees from the CoC as well as the resolution applicant. In Bhushan Steel case, the Supreme Court identified the CoC as a vital stakeholder in the implementation of the resolution plan and thus held that it continues to exist until the resolution plan is implemented, or an order of liquidation is passed. In Jet Airways the Supreme Court’s suggestion was motivated by a need to ensure that implementation of the resolution plan is overseen by a specific body consisting of all stakeholders. And the NCLT/NCLAT do not approve changes to timelines or conditions in the resolution plan that de facto amends and affects the viability/feasibility of the resolution plan. While in Bhushan Steel case, the Supreme Court extended lifespan of the CoC to prevent an ‘anomalous situation’ wherein if there is failure to implement the resolution plan, creditors will not be able to take any steps for realization of their dues from the corporate debtor.

The IBC Act, 2026 – taking a cue from the Supreme Court’s recommendation in Jet Airways case – proposes that every resolution plan must mandatorily provide for constitution of an implementation committee. Section 30(2)(d) amended by the IBC Act, 2026 now mentions that a resolution plan must provide for implementation and supervision of the resolution plan and constitution of a committee for this purpose. Section 30(2)(d) envisages that the committee – an implementation committee – shall comprise of a resolution professional or any other insolvency professional, representatives of a class or classes of creditors and the resolution applicant. However, the IBC Act, 2026 should have gone further and also clarified the CoC’s role during implementation of the resolution plan. This is because while the IBC Act, 2026 mandates the constitution of an implementation committee it does not detract from the Supreme Court’s observation in Bhushan Steel, i.e., the CoC’s continues to exist until the resolution plan is implemented. If the implementation committee and the CoC are to co-exist during implementation phase, the IBC Act, 2026 should ideally and expressly provide specific roles and functions of the CoC during implementation phase. For example, it is unclear if the implementation committee will be a sub-set of the CoC. And if all requests for time extensions or other amendments need to be necessarily pre-approved by the CoC. Will implementation of the resolution plan be supervised by the implementation committee and the CoC will only approve any requests for amendments in the plan? There is no clarity that emerges from the IBC Act, 2026.

The CIRP Regulations already provide for constitution of an implementation committee. The IBC Act, 2026 aims to provide a statutory basis to the implementation committee and mandates that every resolution plan must necessarily provide for composition of the implementation committee. But the IBC Act, 2026 leaves the issue of overlapping existence of both entities unaddressed. The CoC should certainly be involved in implementation of the resolution plan. And the rationale for its involvement in implementation of the resolution plan is strengthened by the need to preserve viability and feasibility of the resolution plan. Else, NCLT approving changes to the resolution plan without the CoC’s involvement may alter it to such an extent that it dilutes or defeats commercial wisdom of the CoC. Finally, continued role of the CoC during implementation phase is also relevant because the IBC Act, 2026 proposes that it shall ‘supervise the conduct of the liquidation process by the liquidator’. Notes on clauses state that the CoC should supervise liquidation so that it can apply learnings from CIRP to liquidation. I suggest the same reason is equally relevant to keep the CoC involved in implementation of the resolution plan. Not only will the CoC’s role in implementation of the resolution plan ensure continuity, prevent unwarranted changes, but also – if need arises – keep it abreast of developments that may be helpful during liquidation of the corporate debtor. But clarity about nature and extent of the CoC’s involvement in implementation will be welcome. Specifically, its role vis-à-vis the implementation committee which will now exist under each resolution plan.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is worth mentioning two related but separate judicial observations about the CoC’s tenure: (a) that the CoC does not become functus officio after the NCLT approves a resolution plan; (b) judicial review of the CoC’s commercial wisdom does not preclude sending the resolution plan back for its reconsideration. Ensuring that the CoC continues beyond approval of the resolution plan is defensible for it ensures a smooth implementation. But the CoC’s continued existence also creates an incentive or at least provides an option to the NCLT/NCLAT/Supreme Court to refer resolution plans back to the CoC. Even though the IBC does not expressly contemplate such a reconsideration. And, in fact, the reconsideration proves counterproductive to timely completion of CIRP without attaching any penalties to the CoC for its failure to perform its statutory duties. The proposed proviso to Section 31(2) has the potential to provide sanctity to an unsatisfactory legal situation instead of streamlining the CIRP-related judicial process. At the same time, the IBC Act, 2026 does not clearly delineate the CoC’s role in implementation of the resolution plan leaving room for uncertainty on that aspect. The CoC and the implementation should have, ideally, clearly defined roles via provisions in the IBC itself and only procedural details should have been left for CIRP Regulations.