Examine the accountability mechanisms for Resolution Professionals under the IBC, with reference to recent NCLT observations on claims verification.

The Resolution Professional (RP) is the fulcrum of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — verifying claims, constituting the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and steering resolution. Since every creditor's voting right flows from the RP's claim list, the Code builds layered accountability; recent NCLT orders show it operates largely after the damage.

Statutory duties

• Section 208 obliges the RP to act with reasonable care and diligence and abide by a code of conduct [1].
• In personal-guarantor cases, Part III requires the RP to examine the debtor's repayment plan, report to the Adjudicating Authority and convene creditors — the plan being approved under Section 114 [1], with claim-handling detailed in the IBBI (Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019 [2][3].

Regulatory and disciplinary oversight

• Dual regulation: Insolvency Professional Agency bye-laws plus IBBI supervision.
• The Code of Conduct (First Schedule, IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016) mandates integrity, independence and impartiality [4].
• Sections 217–220 allow complaints, investigation and a Disciplinary Committee, which regularly imposes penalties, suspension or cancellation of registration [1][5].

Judicial oversight — NCLT on claims verification

• Approving Subhash Chandra's ₹6.5 crore repayment plan against ₹22,006.57 crore admitted claims (August 2026), the NCLT excluded claims filed on behalf of 960 and 300 individuals, observing that the RP admitted them without examining how the alleged debts arose, and ordered redistribution [6].
• The order exposes the stakes of verification: admitted claims fix vote shares — here 80.81% approval against 19.186% dissent by banks — so lax scrutiny can dilute genuine creditors and bind them to steep haircuts [6].

Persisting gaps: accountability is ex-post and complaint-driven, while the RP is appointed and paid by creditors, straining independence.

Accountability of the RP is thus the hinge on which the IBC's "creditor democracy" turns. Strengthening ex-ante verification norms, reasoned disclosure of claim admissions and time-bound disciplinary action — alongside the procedural reforms carried by the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 [7] — would align the process with the Code's core objective of value maximisation with fairness to all stakeholders.