A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, along with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, decided up to 391 petitions contesting different IBC provisions. The constitutionality of sections 95(1), 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2), 99(4), 99(5), 99(6) and 100 of the Code was contested on numerous occasions
The Supreme Court upheld provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in response to several petitioners’ claims that certain provisions violate fundamental rights, such as the right to equality of those against whom insolvency proceedings are initiated.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, along with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, decided up to 391 petitions contesting different IBC provisions. The constitutionality of sections 95(1), 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2), 99(4), 99(5), 99(6) and 100 of the Code was contested on numerous occasions.
The bench determined that the provisions were constitutionally valid and did not exhibit the alleged arbitrariness.
“The IBC cannot be held to be operating retroactively to hold it violative of the Constitution. Thus, we hold that the statute does not suffer from the vices of manifest arbitrariness,” the CJI said while rendering the decision.
Before this, the Supreme Court had sent notices on several occasions regarding petitions contesting different aspects of the IBC. Later, all 391 petitions, including the lead one submitted by Surendra B Jiwrajka, were combined to provide a definitive ruling on legal matters.