In Brief
In a batch of 384 writ petitions, the Supreme Court examined whether Sections 95–100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are constitutionally valid. Petitioners challenged the provisions governing the individual insolvency resolution process, arguing that the appointment of a resolution professional and its investigative powers violated natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the resolution professional's role is purely facilitative—gathering and examining facts before submitting a recommendatory (non-binding) report to the adjudicating authority. No judicial adjudication occurs until Section 100, when the adjudicating authority independently decides whether to admit or reject the application. The interim-moratorium under Section 96 protects debtors from legal proceedings and does not freeze assets. Adequate opportunity is provided to the debtor to engage with the resolution professional. The Court rejected the demand for a judicial hearing at the appointment stage, as it would impermissibly rewrite the statute and dislocate the time-bound statutory scheme. The provisions are constitutional and compliant with natural justice principles.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.