March 25, 2026
Pratima Mondal’s speech on The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026
Sir, on behalf of All India Trinamool Congress, I rise to speak on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Amendment Bill, 2025, not to obstruct, but to hold this Government accountable for what this Bill does and for what it refuses to fix. Let us begin with the Government’s own numbers. As of June, 2025, 43 of closed CIRP cases ended in liquidation, not resolution. The recoveries averaged just 33 paise on the rupee. The average CIRP took 602 days; nearly double the statutory limit. And 78 per cent of the ongoing cases have already breached 270 days’ timeline. Nine years after the IBC was introduced, this is the Government’s record. What does this Government offer in response — a Bill that expands the law, hands more power to financial creditors, weakens judicial oversight, and leaves every structural failure completely untouched? Sir, this Bill dramatically expands the scope of insolvency law, new processes, new supervisory powers, new frameworks for group and cross-border insolvency, and yet it does nothing to fix the codes that must implement all these. As of March, 2025, the NCLT takes more than a year to admit an insolvency application against a 14-day statutory deadline. The Supreme Court itself has noted that tribunals sit only a few days a week due to infrastructure shortfalls, with 12,351 pending IBC cases before the NCLT alone. Sir, the MCA has proposed 15 new NCLT courts to the Cabinet. That proposal is not in this Bill. This Government is adding new floors to a crumbling building without repairing the foundation. The most dangerous shift in this Bill is the unchecked expansion of creditor power into territory previously reserved for independent judicial officers. This Bill treats the liquidator of quasi-judicial powers and hands the Committee of Creditors the authority to appoint, supervise and remove the liquidator, requiring a 66 per cent voting share. The CoC can even dissolve the company directly – workers, MSMEs, operational creditors and Government authorities – all of whom rank below financial creditors in the waterfall. The process is controlled entirely by the very parties who rank above them. This is not reform. This is a structural conflict of interest legislated. Sir, the new creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process bypasses the Code at the point of initiation. The moratorium begins before any court has examined the case for a stretched MSME or a business in a cyclical downturn. This is not a resolution mechanism. It is a cohesive tool. Critically, the CIIRP can only be initiated by institutions notified by the Central Government, not by all financial creditors, not by operational creditors, and not by the debtor. It is restricted only to Government-chosen institutions. That is not law; that is patronage. Sir, under current law, parties can withdraw an insolvency application before the CoC is constituted, allowing early, affordable settlement. This Bill eliminates that option. The Select Committee’s own data shows that 78 per cent of CIRP withdrawals involve claims below Rs 10 crore, and 70 per cent are initiated by operational creditors, that are, MSMEs and vendors. They used early withdrawal to resolve disputes without being trapped in a process they cannot afford. This Bill slams that door shut. With over 20,000 cases already pending before the NCLT, restricting early settlement does not protect the process. It burdens the courts further and punishes the smallest creditors the most. Sir, this Bill mandates that once a default is established, the NCLT must admit that no other grounds may be considered. This reverses the Supreme Court’s position in Vidarbha Industries case, which held that NCLT has discretion to examine whether admission serves all stakeholders. Without our proposed amendment to Clause 4 – preserving NCLT’s power to reject mala fide or abusive filings – insolvency becomes a weapon available to any creditor who can establish a default on paper. Sir, I would like to put my demands before the Government. First, the NCLT must retain explicit power to reject fraudulent or abusive CIRP filings. Second, the CoC’s suprevisory role in liquidation must not override the independence of the liquidator or the adjudicating authority. Third, avoidance and wrongful trading proceedings must conclude within one year, with written reasons required for any extension. Sir, the hon. Finance Minister, in her reply, stated that the workers in Darjeeling are being deprived by the State Government. … Sir, I would like to draw the attention of this House. … The workers are provided with houses under the Banglar Awaas Yojana. They are also getting health facilities. …
