DATE: 25/01/2019
BENCH: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha
FACTS:
This case arose as a constitutional challenge to various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016). The petitioners, Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd., along with other stakeholders, argued that the IBC was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice any Profession or Business) of the Constitution of India. They contended that the classification of creditors into financial creditors and operational creditors was unreasonable and that the process of resolution under the IBC unfairly favored financial creditors. Additionally, they challenged the role of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in insolvency resolution, arguing that the lack of judicial oversight from traditional courts weakened the system's fairness and transparency.
The Union of India, defending the IBC, argued that the distinction between financial and operational creditors was based on an intelligible differentia and served a legitimate purpose of ensuring efficient insolvency resolution. The government maintained that the IBC was designed to protect the interests of all creditors while prioritizing financial stability and economic growth. It further contended that the IBC aimed to maximize the value of assets, ensure the timely resolution of insolvency cases, and promote entrepreneurship. The case was significant as it questioned the very foundation of the IBC and its effectiveness in handling corporate insolvency while balancing the rights of different stakeholders.
ISSUES:
The key issues in this case were the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioners argued that the classification of creditors into financial and operational creditors was arbitrary and violated Article 14 (Right to Equality). They also challenged the dominance of financial creditors in decision-making and the lack of judicial oversight in insolvency proceedings. The case further examined whether the IBC ensured natural justice and a fair balance between creditors' rights and economic revival.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The Court ruled that the classification of financial and operational creditors was based on an intelligible differentia and served a rational purpose. It found that the IBC was designed to ensure timely resolution of insolvency, promote economic recovery, and balance the interests of all stakeholders. Thus, the Court rejected the challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution and upheld the framework of the IBC.
The Court reasoned that financial creditors (such as banks and financial institutions) play a crucial role in assessing business viability, making their decision-making power in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) justified. In contrast, operational creditors (such as suppliers and service providers) have different stakes, primarily concerning payment for goods or services, rather than assessing long-term viability. Since the classification had a legitimate basis, it did not violate the right to equality under Article 14.
Additionally, the Court held that the IBC aimed to prevent delays and improve the ease of doing business by offering a structured insolvency resolution process. It also found that the Code provided sufficient safeguards, including judicial oversight by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and appellate review by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Court emphasized that the focus of IBC was resolution over liquidation, ensuring that businesses could be revived while protecting creditors’ interests.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India reaffirmed the constitutional validity of the IBC, 2016, highlighting its role in ensuring a robust and time-bound insolvency resolution mechanism. The Court recognized that economic legislation requires flexibility to address financial complexities, and therefore, the classification of creditors into financial and operational creditors was not arbitrary but based on a well-defined rationale. By upholding the priority given to financial creditors in the resolution process, the Court acknowledged their greater ability to assess business viability and risk, which is crucial for determining the best course of action in insolvency cases. This classification was deemed necessary to prevent economic disruptions, maintain market stability, and enhance credit availability.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the IBC was designed to revive businesses rather than merely liquidate assets, ensuring a balance between creditors' rights and economic growth. It dismissed concerns regarding the lack of judicial oversight, stating that the NCLT and NCLAT serve as specialized tribunals with adequate appellate mechanisms. By endorsing the IBC’s framework, the Court reinforced India’s commitment to an efficient insolvency resolution system, improving investor confidence and the ease of doing business. The judgment ultimately underscored the need for a strong institutional framework to handle corporate insolvency while protecting stakeholders' interests and fostering financial discipline in the economy.
info@adhwaitha.com
