The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), the country's primary insolvency regulator, has refused to compile and disclose specific data regarding large personal insolvency resolution plans. This decision came after a Right to Information (RTI) application sought details on cases where admitted claims exceeded ₹200 crore and resulted in substantial 'haircuts' for creditors.
The RTI, filed by Business Today, specifically requested information for each such case over the past decade, including the individual's name, total admitted claims, repayment amount, recovery percentage, haircut percentage, approval dates, and creditor-wise figures. The application was prompted by a notable case involving Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra, where a repayment of ₹6.25 crore was approved against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore.
IBBI Cites Resource Diversion and Public Domain Availability
In its reply dated September 25, 2026, the IBBI's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated that the requested information is not maintained in the specific manner sought. The CPIO directed the applicant to the Board’s publications page, implying the data is publicly accessible but not in a consolidated format.
Business Today subsequently appealed the decision. However, on November 10, 2026, First Appellate Authority Sanjay Manocha upheld the CPIO's refusal, dismissing the appeal. The order reasoned that compiling such a consolidated statement would require identifying cases by a claims threshold and breaking them down year-wise and creditor-wise, an exercise that would involve extensive collation and compilation from various records and sources.
Regulator's Stance on Data Compilation
The IBBI outlined its position with four key points:
- Since the information is available in the public domain, the CPIO is not obliged to maintain and furnish it in the exact manner requested.
- No broader public interest was demonstrated to justify a directive for the IBBI to compile the data.
- The exercise would "disproportionately divert the resources" of the IBBI, aligning with Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
- The decision cited a precedent from the Central Information Commission's October 1, 2008 ruling in Praveen Agarwal vs. SEBI.
The appellate authority concluded that the CPIO’s initial reply "does not merit any interference," effectively closing the door on the request for consolidated data on significant personal insolvency haircuts.