Supreme Court Upholds the Constitutional Validity of the IBC
Table of Contents
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was enacted to streamline the insolvency process, replacing a fragmented system of law. In the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India the Constitutional Validity of the IBC was challenged on multiple grounds, primarily focusing on the differential treatment between financial and operational creditors, the appointment of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and the powers granted to the resolution professional (RP). The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case, delivered on January 25, 2019, was a landmark decision that settled the constitutional validity of the IBC and reinforced the creditor-driven, time-bound nature of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), which is crucial for economic stability and investor confidence.
Background of the IBC
The primary objective of the IBC is to promote resolution over liquidation, aiming to save viable business as going concern through restructuring, change in ownership, or mergers, thereby maximising the value of the debtor’s assets and promoting entrepreneurship. It establishes a strict timeline of the CIRP, which under section 12, states that the process must be completed within 180 days, extendable by up to 90 days with NCLT approval, and a mandatory 330 day deadline for the entire process, including legal proceedings. The key stakeholders involved in this process are operational and financial creditors, corporate debtors, and the RPs.
Read more Section 34 of Arbitration Act
Why Was the IBC’s Validity Challenged?
The constitutional validity of the IBC has been challenged on several grounds about violations of fundamental rights and potential misuse by creditors:
- A key argument was that the IBC’s classification of financial creditors and operational creditors creates an arbitrary distinction without a reasonable basis, thereby violating the principle of equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- The IBC’s provisions, especially section 29A, were challenged for potentially infringing on the right to carry on business. Section 29A bars promoters and their relatives from participating in the resolution process for a period of one year after a corporate debtor’s default.
- Promoters and corporate debtors raised concerns about the IBC’s impact on their control and rights. They argued that the legislation allows creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings based solely on a default, without requiring the resolution of disputes over the debt, which they claimed violated principles of natural justice.
- There were also concerns that the IBC’s provisions could be misused by creditors, particularly financial creditors, to unfairly target corporate debtors.
Supreme Court’s Observations
-
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the IBC, affirming that the differential treatment between financial and operational creditors is justified by an intelligible differentia related to the objectives of the IBC, such as the nature of their claims, the structure of their contracts, and their respective roles in assessing corporate viability.
- The court recognised that insolvency proceedings under the IBC are not adversarial to the corporate debtor, emphasising that the IBC is beneficial legislation designed to resolve and revive distressed companies, and affirmed the role of the RP as an administrative function subject to judicial supervision.
- The court validated key IBC provisions, including section 29A, and upheld the requirement for a 90% voting threshold for withdrawal from the CIRP, stating that these features are essential for preventing misuse and ensuring a fair and efficient resolution process.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
The key takeaways from the Supreme Court in the Swiss Ribbons case are:
- The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the IBC, affirming the creditor-in-control model due to their expertise in assessing the business viability and restructuring are granted a central role in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to oversee the resolution process.
- The judgment recognised the legitimacy of differential treatment between financial and operational creditors, finding an intelligible differentia based on factors such as the secured nature of financial debts, the scale of financial contracts, and the distinct roles of each creditor class in business operational and restructuring.
- The ruling established that economic reforms like the IBC are protected from frequent constitutional challenges by affirming that legislative classifications, such as those between creditor types, are rational and serve the objective of efficient insolvency resolution, thereby ensuring the stability of the economic framework.
Impact of the Judgment
- For Creditors: The judgment significantly enhances investor and bidder confidence in the insolvency resolution process by validating the IBC’s framework, thereby improving the ease of doing business in India, and facilitating faster asset resolution.
- For Corporate Debtors: It establishes that the insolvency process is protective of the corporate debtor’s interests, prioritizing revival over liquidation and enabling swift displacement of defaulting management to safeguard assets and promote economic recovery.
- For Indian Economy: This ruling reinforces the privacy of financial creditors in the resolution process while mandating fair and equitable treatment for operational creditors, contributing to a more stable and efficient economic environment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India is a milestone in India’s insolvency law and reinforces the IBC’s role as a robust mechanism for corporate restructuring. The judgement upheld the cConstitutional Validity of the IBC framework, emphasizing its legislative intent to ensure economic revival, maximize asset value, and maintain procedural integrity, thereby balancing efficiency with fairness in corporate insolvency. By validating the distinction between financial and operational creditors and affirming the independence of the NCLT and the NCLAT it has been instrumental in shaping India’s economic reforming, fostering investor confidence, and enabling swift resolution of stressed assets. Hence, the judgement provided a legal certainty, bolstered the robustness of the IBC framework, and set a precedent for future insolvency jurisprudence in India.
Recent Posts
