A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pronounced the judgment in a batch of over 200 petitions challenging Sections 95(1), 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2), 99(4), 99(5), 99(6), and 100 of the IBC.

Notably, Anil Ambani, a businessman, was among the petitioners in this case. He contested certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), asserting that they infringed upon fundamental rights protected by the constitution. The batch of cases comprised over 200 petitions challenging different aspects of the code, with a specific focus on contesting the provisions related to the authority of resolution professionals.

"We are of the view that the argument that an adjudicatory role be imposed before Section 97 cannot be accepted ... We have come to the conclusion that reading an adjudicatory role in section 97 will render Section 99 and Section 100 of the IBC otiose," the Court held.

The bench expressed the view that it would not be acceptable for the Court to entertain the notion that there is a form of adjudication during the appointment of a Resolution Professional (RP) by the adjudicating authority. According to the Supreme Court, genuine adjudication only initiates at the stage of Section 100 (admission or rejection of application) of the IBC.