This article critically examines Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which was introduced as a pandemic-era measure to temporarily suspend the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Sections 7, 9 and 10. While Parliament’s intention was to provide relief to businesses facing financial hardship during COVID-19, the broad wording of the provision, particularly the phrase “shall ever be filed”, resulted in a permanent and retrospective prohibition on creditors applications for default that occurred during the specified stay period. The article argues that such a blanket prohibition, without any leeway for judicial discretion or revival of claims, creates procedural and constitutional anomalies. It disproportionately restricts the rights of creditors, undermines the legislative balance envisaged by Sections 7 and 9 and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by encouraging arbitrariness and denying access to justice. Through a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis of the main decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), this artilce highlights the inconsistencies of interpretation and practical challenges in determining the date of default and the applicability of Section 10A. In addition, it draws on comparative perspectives from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore, which have implemented more balanced insolvency responses to the pandemic. In conclusion, the article proposes legislative reform, including the insertion of a revitalization mechanism or sunset clause, and recommends a judicial review of the constitutional validity of section 10A in order to restore fairness and consistency in the insolvency framework.

The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 is the main…