{"id":1432,"date":"2026-04-27T08:34:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T08:34:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432"},"modified":"2026-04-27T08:34:02","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T08:34:02","slug":"ibc-amendment-2026-series-vi-an-overview-of-the-cocs-evolving-and-expanding-role","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432","title":{"rendered":"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026<\/a> (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia \u2013 expands role of the Committee of Creditors (\u2018CoC\u2019) in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019). The most notable expansion is that the CoC will oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor. This is in addition to the CoC\u2019s 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\u2019s observations in Kalyani Transco v M\/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd and Others<\/a> (\u2018Bhushan Steel case\u2019) 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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2013 directly or indirectly – judicially review commercial wisdom of the CoC. Judicial remit must remain limited to examining the CoC\u2019s decisions on the touchstone of legality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s pre-eminent role by assigning it additional responsibilities. This article examines the CoC\u2019s expanded role after the IBC Act, 2026 and various implications that arise from its expanded role. Given the CoC\u2019s multi-faceted role, there are various strands of its working that can be elaborated on, but in the interest of brevity and coherence I\u2019ve chosen only two strands in this article: firstly, the CoC\u2019s obligation to provide reasons for approval of a resolution plan; secondly, the CoC\u2019s power to oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019ve examined both these aspects separately in my previous post here<\/a> and here<\/a>. So, I will steer clear of both these aspects in this article.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CoC Must Provide Reasons for Approval of a Resolution Plan <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 30(4) which now states that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/u>, after considering its feasibility and viability \u2026. <\/em>(emphasis added)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As emphasized, the IBC Act, 2026 has added the phrase \u2018and record reasons for its approval\u2019. This amendment was not proposed in the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025<\/a> and neither does it find place in Report of the Select Committee on the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025<\/a> (\u2018Select Committee Report\u2019). 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\u2019s decision making. A normative reason is that the IBC\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> (\u2018Elegna Co-op Housing case\u2019) where the Supreme Court approved the NCLAT\u2019s 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 \u2018corresponding duty of responsibility.\u2019 And mandated the CoC to record cogent reasons when it took a non-routine or an extraordinary decision. The NCLAT\u2019s 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 \u2018non-routine\u2019 or \u2018extraordinary\u2019 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.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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<\/a> where unsuccessful resolution applicants have challenged rejection of their resolution plans and cast aspersions on the CoC\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supervising Liquidation: Streamlining Process and Ensuring Continuity from CIRP <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 35(2), which now states that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s role in liquidation is akin to its role vis-\u00e0-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\u2019s role in the liquidation process and its supervision of the liquidator two crucial changes are worth highlighting: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, Section 34(4) states that an insolvency resolution professional appointed as resolution professional for CIRP \u2018shall not be appointed\u2019 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\u2019s 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 \u2018perverse incentive\u2019 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.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018is required to be replaced.\u2019 The CoC need not provide any specific grounds for removal and replacement of the liquidator. It is unclear if the CoC\u2019s decision to replace a liquidator can be challenged in the NCLT or not. Or will it be swept under the doctrine of commercial wisdom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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.        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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 \u2018verify claims of all the creditors\u2019 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 <\/strong>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)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s assets.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some stakeholders expressed valid concerns to the Select Committee about the CoC\u2019s powers vis-\u00e0-vis the liquidator and that there was uncertainty as to the role of each entity. While Chapter II \u2013 dealing with CIRP \u2013 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\u2019s powers in relation to liquidator will be addressed, but details \u2013 for now – are sparse.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Section 33(2) has also been amended. A proviso has been added to provide statutory basis for the CoC\u2019s 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<\/a> permitted the CoC to take such a decision. The NCLT\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2013 under the amended Section 30(4) \u2013 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\u2019s observations which had mandated the CoC to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s objectives which aims to rescue the corporate debtor. In such a scenario, recorded reasons should reflect as to why the IBC\u2019s stated aims are being sacrificed in favor of liquidation.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CoC\u2019s 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\u2019s decision to liquidate a corporate debtor will be based \u2013 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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CoC \u2013 An Independent Entity with Immense Responsibility<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NCLAT in CoC of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd v Riju Ravindran<\/a> 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\u2019s role in following words: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/u>, since it is also required to secure the interest of every creditor of the corporate debtor besides the corporate debtor itself. <\/em>(para 8.1) (emphasis added) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s role and wide-ranging impact of its business decisions. And the IBC Act, 2026, contemporaneously, has attempted to enhance transparency in the CoC\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s journey to the grave, metaphorically or literally.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia \u2013 expands role of the Committee of Creditors (\u2018CoC\u2019) in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019). The most notable expansion is that the CoC will oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor. This is in addition to the CoC\u2019s existing responsibility to … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[198],"tags":[337,95,345,343,347,144,94,32],"class_list":["post-1432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abc-of-ibc","tag-coc","tag-ibc","tag-ibc-act-2026","tag-liquidation","tag-nclat","tag-nclt","tag-ravpratapsingh","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia \u2013 expands role of the Committee of Creditors (\u2018CoC\u2019) in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019). The most notable expansion is that the CoC will oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor. This is in addition to the CoC\u2019s existing responsibility to ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-27T08:34:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-27T08:34:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432\",\"name\":\"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-27T08:34:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-27T08:34:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\",\"name\":\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"description\":\"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\",\"name\":\"Rav Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rav Singh\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","og_description":"The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia \u2013 expands role of the Committee of Creditors (\u2018CoC\u2019) in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019). The most notable expansion is that the CoC will oversee liquidation of the corporate debtor. This is in addition to the CoC\u2019s existing responsibility to ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432","og_site_name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","article_published_time":"2026-04-27T08:34:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-27T08:34:02+00:00","author":"Rav Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rav Singh","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432","name":"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-27T08:34:01+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-27T08:34:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1432#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IBC (Amendment), 2026 Series \u2013 VI | An Overview of the CoC\u2019s Evolving (and Expanding) Role"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/","name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","description":"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917","name":"Rav Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rav Singh"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/"],"url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1432"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1433,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432\/revisions\/1433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}