IBBI’s Proposed CIRP Amendments: Strengthening Transparency and Integrity in India’s Insolvency Resolution Framework

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has recently invited public comments on significant amendments to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), marking another evolutionary step in India’s insolvency regime. These proposed changes, announced in August 2025, reflect the regulatory body’s commitment to refining the framework that has transformed India’s approach to corporate distress since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2016. The CIRP amendments 2025 focus on three critical areas: recording deliberations of the Committee of Creditors regarding resolution applicant eligibility, enhancing disclosure requirements for resolution plans, and mandating electronic platforms for invitation and submission of resolution plans. These changes emerge from a confluence of judicial pronouncements, stakeholder feedback, and practical experiences accumulated over years of implementation, and they represent a parliamentary committee recommendation following the success of similar requirements in the liquidation process.

The significance of these CIRP amendments extends beyond procedural modifications. They address fundamental concerns about transparency, accountability, and fairness that have emerged through the resolution of hundreds of corporate insolvencies since the Code’s implementation. By requiring formal documentation of Committee of Creditors’ deliberations and expanding disclosure obligations, the regulatory framework seeks to minimize litigation, prevent potential abuse, and ensure that the insolvency resolution process achieves its twin objectives of maximizing asset value while maintaining the integrity of the corporate resolution mechanism. The timing of these amendments is particularly relevant as India continues to refine its insolvency ecosystem, balancing the need for swift resolution with safeguards against misuse of the process.

Understanding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Framework

The corporate insolvency resolution process operates as the cornerstone of India’s insolvency regime, established through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This time-bound process, typically limited to 330 days including judicial processes [1], provides a structured mechanism for resolving corporate distress while preserving the corporate debtor as a going concern. The process commences upon admission of an application filed by financial creditors, operational creditors, or the corporate debtor itself, triggering an automatic moratorium that protects the debtor from legal proceedings and enforcement actions during the resolution period.

Once the process begins, an interim resolution professional takes control of the corporate debtor’s management, replacing the existing board of directors. The resolution professional’s responsibilities encompass managing the debtor’s operations, preserving and protecting its assets, constituting the Committee of Creditors, and facilitating the submission and approval of resolution plans. The Committee of Creditors, comprising financial creditors with voting rights proportional to their debt, becomes the primary decision-making body during the resolution process. This committee evaluates resolution plans submitted by prospective applicants and approves a plan that offers the best prospects for maximizing asset value while satisfying creditors’ claims.

The legislative framework governing this process extends beyond the primary Code to encompass detailed regulations issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. The IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, supplemented by multiple amendments in subsequent years, provide operational guidelines covering every aspect of the resolution process. These regulations specify procedures for conducting the process, requirements for resolution professionals, formats for various submissions, and standards for resolution plans. The regulatory framework has evolved continuously since 2016, with the Board issuing amendments in 2025 alone that address various aspects including part-wise resolution of corporate debtors, homebuyer participation as resolution applicants, and enhanced disclosure requirements for resolution plans.

The Committee of Creditors and Decision-Making Authority

The Committee of Creditors represents one of the most distinctive features of India’s insolvency regime, concentrating decision-making authority in the hands of financial creditors who hold the largest economic stake in the corporate debtor’s revival. The composition and functioning of this committee have been subjects of extensive judicial interpretation, particularly regarding the extent of its powers and the limits on judicial interference with its commercial decisions. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta [2], articulated the foundational principle that the Committee of Creditors possesses wide discretion in commercial matters related to the resolution process, including the evaluation and approval of resolution plans.

The Essar Steel judgment clarified that the Committee of Creditors operates with substantial autonomy in assessing resolution plans based on commercial considerations, and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with these decisions unless they violate statutory provisions or suffer from patent illegality. This judicial deference recognizes that financial creditors, having the maximum stake in the outcome, are best positioned to evaluate competing resolution proposals and determine which plan maximizes value for all stakeholders. The judgment emphasized that the Code’s architecture deliberately places commercial wisdom with financial creditors rather than operational creditors or the adjudicating authority, reflecting a policy choice to prioritize the interests of those who advanced credit to the corporate debtor.

However, the Committee’s authority, while extensive, operates within defined boundaries. The Committee cannot take decisions that violate mandatory provisions of the Code or regulations, discriminate among creditors within the same class, or approve plans that fail to meet statutory requirements. The resolution plan must satisfy multiple conditions specified in the Code, including payment of insolvency resolution process costs, provision for operational creditors, and compliance with other applicable laws. Furthermore, the Committee must ensure that resolution applicants satisfy eligibility criteria specified in the Code, particularly those outlined in Section 29A, which disqualifies certain categories of persons from submitting resolution plans.

The proposed amendments to CIRP 2025 seek to strengthen the Committee’s decision-making process by requiring formal documentation of deliberations regarding resolution applicant eligibility. This requirement addresses concerns that have emerged through practical experience, where disputes about applicant eligibility have led to protracted litigation and delayed resolution. By mandating that the Committee record its deliberations in meeting minutes, the CIRP amendments aim to create a transparent record demonstrating that the Committee properly considered each applicant’s eligibility before approving their resolution plan. This documentation requirement serves multiple purposes: it encourages thorough discussion of eligibility issues, provides a basis for reviewing the Committee’s decision if challenged, and demonstrates compliance with statutory requirements regarding applicant eligibility.

Section 29A: Eligibility Criteria for Resolution Applicants

Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code establishes comprehensive disqualifications that prevent certain categories of persons from submitting resolution plans, representing one of the Code’s most critical safeguards against misuse of the insolvency process. Introduced through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018, this provision emerged in response to concerns that the original framework allowed promoters and related parties who contributed to the corporate debtor’s distress to regain control through the resolution process. The section’s disqualifications extend to various categories including undischarged insolvents, wilful defaulters, persons with non-performing accounts, persons convicted of specified offenses, persons prohibited from trading in securities, and persons disqualified from acting as directors.

The scope of Section 29A extends beyond the resolution applicant to encompass persons acting jointly or in concert with the applicant, preventing circumvention through related party structures. The provision disqualifies not only individuals falling within specified categories but also entities where such individuals hold significant ownership or control. For instance, if a person is a wilful defaulter, not only is that person disqualified, but any entity where that person holds beneficial interest exceeding specified thresholds also becomes ineligible to submit resolution plans. This comprehensive approach prevents sophisticated structures designed to bypass eligibility requirements while nominally complying with the provision’s letter.

The interpretation and application of Section 29A have generated substantial jurisprudence, with courts addressing questions about the provision’s scope, timing of eligibility determination, and relationship with other Code provisions. The provision’s language requires resolution applicants to submit affidavits confirming their eligibility under Section 29A along with their resolution plans, as specified in Section 30(2) of the Code. This requirement places an initial burden on resolution applicants to conduct due diligence regarding their eligibility and certify compliance with all disqualification criteria. However, the Committee of Creditors retains responsibility for independently verifying applicant eligibility before approving any resolution plan, as approval of a plan submitted by an ineligible person would violate mandatory statutory provisions and render the approval void.

The IBBI proposed CIRP amendments recognize that despite existing requirements for eligibility affidavits, disputes regarding applicant eligibility continue to arise, often leading to litigation that delays or derails resolution processes. The current framework lacks specific provisions requiring the Committee of Creditors to formally document its consideration of eligibility issues, creating situations where committees approve plans without thoroughly examining applicant eligibility or maintaining clear records of their deliberations on these matters. This gap has resulted in cases where approved resolution plans were subsequently challenged based on applicant ineligibility, leading courts to remit matters back to the Committee for reconsideration or, in some instances, to reject approved plans altogether.

To address these concerns, the proposed amendments to CIRP introduce requirements for enhanced disclosure by resolution applicants, specifically mandating submission of statements regarding beneficial ownership and affidavits confirming eligibility. The beneficial ownership statement must identify all natural persons who ultimately own or control the prospective resolution applicant, including details of the shareholding structure and jurisdiction of each entity in the ownership chain. This requirement aims to prevent situations where ineligible persons hide behind complex corporate structures to circumvent Section 29A disqualifications. By requiring full transparency regarding beneficial ownership, the amendments enable the Committee of Creditors to conduct thorough due diligence and identify potential eligibility issues before approving resolution plans.

Judicial Pronouncements Shaping CIRP Practice

The evolution of India’s insolvency framework has been substantially influenced by judicial interpretations that have clarified ambiguities, resolved conflicts, and established principles governing various aspects of the resolution process. The Supreme Court’s role has been particularly significant, with landmark judgments addressing fundamental questions about the Code’s architecture, the Committee of Creditors’ powers, eligibility of resolution applicants, and the scope of judicial review over commercial decisions made during the resolution process.

Beyond the Essar Steel judgment, which established the Committee of Creditors’ primacy in commercial decision-making, courts have addressed numerous other critical issues. In Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [3], the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of various Code provisions, including Section 29A’s disqualifications, rejecting challenges that these provisions violated constitutional rights or operated retrospectively. The judgment emphasized that Section 29A serves a legitimate purpose of preventing persons responsible for or connected with corporate debtor’s default from regaining control through the resolution process, and that the provision’s disqualifications represent reasonable restrictions necessary to achieve the Code’s objectives.

Courts have also addressed procedural aspects of the resolution process, including timelines, withdrawal of applications, and the relationship between settlement negotiations and insolvency proceedings. Recent Supreme Court pronouncements have clarified that applications for withdrawal under Section 12A of the Code can be filed even before constitution of the Committee of Creditors, provided settlements satisfy statutory requirements and receive necessary approvals [4]. These judgments reflect judicial recognition that while the Code establishes a time-bound process, flexibility remains necessary to accommodate genuine settlements that serve creditors’ interests better than continued insolvency proceedings.

The jurisprudence surrounding Section 29A has been particularly rich, with courts examining various disqualification criteria and their application to different factual scenarios. Courts have held that Section 29A disqualifications must be determined as of the date of resolution plan submission, and that subsequent events removing disqualifications do not render previously ineligible persons eligible. Similarly, courts have addressed questions about whether guarantors of corporate debtors’ debts are disqualified under Section 29A(h), which bars persons whose account has been classified as non-performing asset, concluding that guarantors generally fall within this disqualification when their accounts are classified as non-performing.

Judicial pronouncements have also emphasized the importance of maintaining process integrity and preventing abuse of the insolvency framework. Courts have intervened to prevent fraudulent conduct, unauthorized asset disposals, and violations of moratorium provisions, demonstrating that while the Committee of Creditors enjoys wide discretion in commercial matters, this discretion does not extend to tolerating illegal conduct or approving plans that violate mandatory statutory provisions. These judgments have shaped the practical implementation of the resolution process, establishing guardrails that balance efficiency with procedural fairness and legal compliance.

The proposed CIRP amendments draw extensively from lessons learned through judicial proceedings, incorporating requirements designed to address issues that have generated litigation and created uncertainty. The requirement to record Committee deliberations on eligibility reflects judicial emphasis on transparent decision-making and proper consideration of statutory requirements. Similarly, enhanced disclosure requirements for resolution applicants respond to judicial observations about the need for complete information regarding applicant structures and beneficial ownership to enable proper evaluation of Section 29A compliance.

Recording Committee Deliberations: Transparency and Accountability

The requirement to record Committee of Creditors’ deliberations regarding resolution applicant eligibility represents perhaps the most significant procedural innovation in the proposed CIRP amendments. Currently, the IBBI regulations require the resolution professional to prepare minutes of Committee meetings, documenting decisions taken and voting patterns. However, these regulations do not specifically mandate detailed recording of discussions, arguments, evidence considered, or reasoning underlying decisions regarding resolution applicant eligibility. The proposed amendments to CIRP seek to address this gap by requiring that the Committee’s deliberations on eligibility be formally documented in meeting minutes, creating a comprehensive record of how the Committee assessed compliance with Section 29A disqualifications.

This documentation requirement serves multiple interrelated purposes that strengthen the resolution process’s integrity and efficiency. First, it encourages thorough and rigorous consideration of eligibility issues by making the Committee’s analysis transparent and subject to review. When Committee members know their deliberations will be recorded and potentially scrutinized, they are more likely to carefully examine eligibility questions, seek necessary clarifications from resolution applicants, and ensure that decisions rest on proper evaluation of all relevant factors. This discipline in deliberation reduces the risk of cursory or superficial examination of eligibility issues that might lead to approval of plans submitted by ineligible persons.

Second, formal recording of deliberations creates evidentiary basis for defending Committee decisions if subsequently challenged. When resolution plans are approved, dissatisfied stakeholders sometimes file appeals challenging the plan’s validity, often raising questions about resolution applicant eligibility. In such proceedings, having detailed minutes documenting the Committee’s consideration of eligibility issues provides crucial evidence demonstrating that the Committee properly discharged its statutory responsibilities. Courts reviewing challenged decisions can examine the recorded deliberations to determine whether the Committee reasonably concluded that the resolution applicant satisfied Section 29A requirements, or whether the decision suffered from non-application of mind or failure to consider relevant factors.

Third, documentation requirements promote consistency and procedural fairness by ensuring that all resolution applicants receive equal consideration regarding eligibility issues. When the Committee must record its deliberations for each applicant, it becomes more difficult to apply different standards to different applicants or to dismiss eligibility concerns for favored applicants while rigorously examining others. The requirement to document deliberations thus serves as a procedural safeguard ensuring that eligibility determinations rest on objective assessment of statutory criteria rather than subjective preferences or improper considerations.

The practical implementation of this requirement will necessitate changes in how Committees conduct meetings and resolution professionals prepare minutes. Rather than simply recording votes and decisions, meeting minutes must now capture substantive discussions about eligibility issues, including concerns raised by Committee members, information provided by resolution applicants, expert opinions or legal advice considered, and the reasoning underlying the Committee’s ultimate conclusion regarding each applicant’s eligibility. Resolution professionals will need to ensure that adequate time is allocated in Committee meetings for thorough discussion of eligibility issues, and that minutes accurately reflect these deliberations while maintaining appropriate confidentiality regarding sensitive commercial information.

The documentation requirement also has implications for resolution applicants, who must anticipate that eligibility issues will receive careful scrutiny and be prepared to provide comprehensive information supporting their compliance with Section 29A requirements. Applicants may need to provide detailed submissions addressing each disqualification criterion, demonstrating through documentary evidence that neither they nor persons acting jointly or in concert fall within any disqualified category. This increased emphasis on eligibility verification may lengthen the evaluation process but should ultimately reduce post-approval challenges and enhance confidence in the integrity of approved resolution plans.

Enhanced Disclosure Requirements and Beneficial Ownership

The proposed amendments to CIRP introduce requirements for resolution applicants to file statements of beneficial ownership along with their resolution plans, addressing concerns about transparency regarding applicant structures and ultimate ownership. The concept of beneficial ownership has gained increasing prominence in corporate governance and regulatory frameworks worldwide, recognizing that legal ownership structures often obscure the natural persons who ultimately control or benefit from corporate entities. In the insolvency context, understanding beneficial ownership becomes critical for assessing Section 29A eligibility, as disqualifications extend to persons acting jointly or in concert with resolution applicants and entities where disqualified persons hold significant beneficial interest.

The beneficial ownership disclosure requirement mandates that resolution applicants provide information identifying all natural persons who ultimately own or control the applicant entity. This includes details of the complete shareholding structure, identifying each layer of ownership from the applicant entity through intermediate holding companies to ultimate individual shareholders. For each entity in the ownership chain, applicants must disclose the jurisdiction of incorporation, shareholding percentages, and any special rights or control mechanisms that affect actual control despite nominal shareholding. This comprehensive disclosure enables the Committee of Creditors to trace ownership through multiple layers and identify whether any disqualified persons hold beneficial interest in the resolution applicant.

The requirement responds to practical challenges that have emerged where resolution applicants have been structured to conceal the involvement of persons potentially disqualified under Section 29A. Complex corporate structures involving multiple jurisdictions, nominee arrangements, trust structures, and special purpose vehicles can obscure beneficial ownership, making it difficult for Committees to verify eligibility based solely on information provided in standard resolution plan formats. By mandating explicit beneficial ownership disclosure, the amendments shift responsibility to resolution applicants to transparently reveal their ownership structures, facilitating proper due diligence by the Committee.

The beneficial ownership statement must identify specific natural persons who qualify as beneficial owners under applicable definitions, which typically include persons holding significant ownership interest or exercising significant control over the entity. Significant ownership interest is generally defined as holding specified percentages of shares or voting rights, while significant control encompasses ability to appoint majority of directors, control management decisions, or exercise influence through agreements or arrangements. Resolution applicants must identify all individuals meeting these criteria at each level of their corporate structure, ensuring that the Committee can assess whether any such individuals fall within Section 29A disqualifications.

In addition to beneficial ownership statements, the amendments require resolution applicants to file affidavits confirming their eligibility under Section 29A. While Section 30(2) of the Code already requires such affidavits, the proposed CIRP amendments appear to strengthen this requirement, possibly by mandating more detailed affidavits addressing each disqualification criterion specifically. The affidavit serves as a formal certification by the resolution applicant that neither the applicant nor any person acting jointly or in concert falls within any disqualified category, and that all information provided regarding ownership, control, and related party relationships is accurate and complete.

These disclosure requirements create legal consequences for resolution applicants who provide false or misleading information. Submission of false affidavits can expose applicants to criminal liability for perjury, while material misrepresentation regarding beneficial ownership or eligibility can form grounds for rejecting resolution plans or canceling approved plans. The enhanced disclosure framework thus creates strong incentives for resolution applicants to conduct thorough internal due diligence regarding their eligibility and to provide complete and accurate information to the Committee. This shift toward greater applicant responsibility for eligibility verification should reduce situations where ineligible persons submit plans based on incomplete or misleading disclosures.

Electronic Platforms and Process Digitization

The proposed CIRP amendments include provisions requiring invitation and submission of resolution plans through electronic platforms, representing a significant step toward digitization of the insolvency resolution process. This requirement follows successful implementation of similar systems in the liquidation process, where electronic platforms have improved transparency, reduced processing time, and created comprehensive digital records of proceedings. The extension of electronic platforms to the resolution plan submission stage reflects broader governmental initiatives toward digital governance and paperless processes across regulatory domains.

Electronic platforms for resolution plan submission offer multiple advantages over traditional paper-based processes. They enable standardized data collection, ensuring that all resolution applicants provide information in consistent formats that facilitate comparison and analysis. Digital submission eliminates logistical challenges associated with physical document handling, particularly when multiple applicants submit lengthy plans with numerous annexures and supporting documents. Electronic platforms also create audit trails documenting when plans were submitted, what modifications were made, and how different versions compare, enhancing transparency and accountability throughout the evaluation process.

The requirement for electronic submission through designated platforms will necessitate development of appropriate technological infrastructure by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. The Board will need to establish secure platforms capable of handling large document volumes, maintaining confidentiality of sensitive commercial information, providing appropriate access controls for resolution professionals and Committee members, and generating reports and analytics to support decision-making. The platform should accommodate various document formats, allow for secure communication between resolution applicants and resolution professionals, and maintain comprehensive records meeting evidentiary standards for potential litigation.

For resolution professionals and Committees of Creditors, electronic platforms promise to streamline the plan evaluation process significantly. Rather than reviewing paper documents spread across multiple volumes, Committee members can access digital plans through user-friendly interfaces that allow searching, comparison across different plans, and tracking of revisions. Electronic platforms can incorporate analytical tools that automatically extract key financial parameters, compare payment terms, and flag potential issues requiring closer examination. These capabilities should enable more efficient and thorough evaluation of resolution plans, particularly in cases involving multiple competing proposals.

Resolution applicants will need to adapt their plan preparation processes to accommodate electronic submission requirements. This includes preparing documents in specified electronic formats, organizing information according to platform requirements, and potentially using digital signatures or other authentication mechanisms to verify submitted materials. While electronic submission may initially present learning curves for some applicants, the standardization and efficiency gains should ultimately simplify the submission process compared to preparing multiple physical copies of voluminous plan documents.

The electronic platform requirement also facilitates compliance monitoring and regulatory oversight by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. The Board can access standardized data from all corporate insolvency resolution processes, enabling analysis of trends, identification of systemic issues, and evidence-based policymaking. Electronic records allow the Board to monitor compliance with timelines, track outcomes across different categories of corporate debtors, and evaluate the effectiveness of regulatory requirements. This data-driven approach to regulation should support continuous refinement of the insolvency framework based on empirical evidence rather than anecdotal observations.

Implications for Stakeholders and Future Outlook

The IBBI’s Proposed CIRP Amendments carry significant implications for all participants in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), requiring adjustments to established practices and creating new compliance obligations. For resolution professionals, the amendments expand responsibilities regarding documentation, verification, and platform management. Resolution professionals must ensure that Committee meetings allocate sufficient time for thorough discussion of eligibility issues and that minutes accurately capture these deliberations while maintaining appropriate confidentiality. They must also manage the electronic platform for plan submission, verify that applicants have provided required beneficial ownership statements and affidavits, and facilitate Committee access to all submitted materials.

Financial creditors serving on Committees of Creditors will face expectations for more active engagement with eligibility issues. Rather than deferring to resolution professional recommendations or accepting applicant representations at face value, Committee members should conduct their own due diligence regarding eligibility, raise questions about concerning aspects of applicant structures or histories, and ensure that deliberations adequately address all relevant factors. The requirement to record deliberations creates accountability for Committee members’ contributions to eligibility discussions, potentially increasing their diligence in reviewing applicant credentials.

Resolution applicants confront heightened disclosure obligations and increased scrutiny of their eligibility credentials. Preparing beneficial ownership statements and detailed eligibility affidavits will require substantial effort, particularly for applicants with complex corporate structures spanning multiple jurisdictions. Applicants must conduct thorough internal due diligence to identify all persons who might be considered to be acting jointly or in concert and to verify that none of these persons falls within Section 29A disqualifications. The enhanced transparency requirements may deter some potential applicants whose eligibility status is uncertain or whose ownership structures would raise concerns if fully disclosed.

For the broader insolvency ecosystem, these amendments signal continued evolution toward greater transparency, formalization, and digital integration. The amendments reflect lessons learned from several years of implementation experience, incorporating practical solutions to recurring problems. They demonstrate the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India’s commitment to evidence-based regulation that responds to stakeholder feedback and judicial pronouncements while advancing the Code’s fundamental objectives of maximizing value and preserving viable businesses.

Looking forward, successful implementation of these amendments will depend on several factors. The Board must develop robust electronic platforms that function reliably under high transaction volumes while maintaining security and confidentiality. Resolution professionals require training on new documentation requirements and platform operation. Committee members need guidance on conducting and recording eligibility deliberations. Resolution applicants should receive clear instructions regarding beneficial ownership disclosure requirements and affidavit contents. Stakeholder education and capacity building will be essential to ensure smooth transition to the amended framework.

The CIRP amendments also open possibilities for further evolution of India’s insolvency regime. Experience with electronic platforms in plan submission may inform broader digitization of insolvency processes, including claims verification, asset valuation, and distribution calculations. Enhanced beneficial ownership disclosure requirements established in the insolvency context might influence beneficial ownership reporting in other regulatory domains. Documentation of Committee deliberations could extend to other aspects of decision-making beyond eligibility determination, creating comprehensive records supporting all key decisions during the resolution process.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments to the corporate insolvency resolution (CIRP) process regulations represent thoughtful refinements addressing practical challenges identified through implementation experience. By requiring documentation of Committee deliberations on resolution applicant eligibility, mandating enhanced disclosure of beneficial ownership, and establishing electronic platforms for plan submission, the CIRP amendments strengthen transparency, reduce litigation risk, and modernize process infrastructure. These changes align with broader global trends toward greater transparency in insolvency proceedings and beneficial ownership reporting while respecting the distinctive architecture of India’s insolvency framework.

The CIRP amendments reflect careful balancing of competing considerations. They impose additional procedural requirements that may extend resolution timelines and increase compliance burdens, but these costs appear justified by benefits of reduced litigation, enhanced confidence in approved plans, and improved decision-making quality. The amendments preserve the Committee of Creditors’ primacy in commercial decision-making while creating accountability mechanisms ensuring that this discretion is exercised responsibly and transparently. They leverage technology to improve process efficiency without sacrificing the flexibility necessary to accommodate diverse circumstances across different corporate insolvencies.

As these CIRP amendments move from proposal to implementation, their success will ultimately be measured by whether they achieve intended objectives without creating unintended obstacles. Stakeholder comments during the public consultation period will provide valuable input for refining proposed provisions before finalization. The insolvency ecosystem’s response—how effectively participants adapt practices to comply with new requirements—will determine whether the amendments deliver promised improvements. With appropriate implementation support and continued monitoring of outcomes, these amendments should advance India’s insolvency framework toward greater maturity, transparency, and effectiveness in achieving the twin goals of maximizing value and preserving viable businesses facing financial distress.

References

[1] Supreme Court of India. (2025). Committee of Creditors of Essar vs. Satish. 2025 INSC 124. 

[2] Supreme Court of India. (2019). Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2018. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/summary-of-landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-in-committee-of-creditors-of-essar-steel-india-limited-vs-satish-kumar-gupta-ors-under-ibc/ 

[3] Supreme Court of India. (2019). Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2018. 

[4] Supreme Court of India. (2023). Withdrawal applications under Section 12A IBC. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/ibc-application-under-section-12a-for-withdrawal-of-cirp-is-maintainable-prior-to-constitution-of-coc-supreme-court-225026 

[5] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. (2016). IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Available at: https://ibbi.gov.in 

[6] Government of India. (2016). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016). Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15479/1/the_insolvency_and_bankruptcy_code,_2016.pdf 

[7] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. (2025). IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025. Available at: https://indiacorplaw.in/2025/07/24/amendments-to-the-ibbi-regulations-on-corporate-insolvency-the-future-of-transparency/ 

[8] IBC Laws. (2024). Section 29A of IBC – Persons not eligible to be resolution applicant. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/section-29a-persons-not-eligible-to-be-resolution-applicant/ 

[9] ELP Law. (2024). Recent landmark judgments of the Supreme Court under IBC. Available at: https://elplaw.in/leadership/recent-landmark-judgments-of-the-supreme-court-under-ibc/