Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday targeted the Narendra Modi government over the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), alleging that the country had been divided into “two systems” — one for a handful of billionaires and another for ordinary citizens.
Gandhi’s remarks came amid controversy over a repayment plan involving Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra in personal insolvency proceedings before the NCLT. The Congress leader sought to contrast the treatment of farmers, salaried borrowers and students with the relief he alleged was available to influential businessmen.
In a post on X, Gandhi took a swipe at the tribunal by referring to the NCLT as the “Neta-Company Loot Tribunal”. “If a farmer doesn’t pay 50 thousand, his land gets auctioned off. If a salaried person misses even one EMI, bank goons show up at the house. Poor students can’t even get loans for education,” Gandhi said. He alleged that the approach was different when it came to a select group of wealthy borrowers, claiming that bank money was treated like “personal property” in such cases. “The Modi government has created two systems in the country — one for a handful of billionaires, and another for everyone else,” Gandhi said.
Congress questions repayment plan
The Congress attack centred on Chandra’s personal insolvency resolution process, in which lenders had filed claims totalling about Rs 22,006 crore. Reports on the tribunal proceedings said a repayment proposal envisaged creditors receiving around Rs 6.5 crore. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh also questioned the development, saying the reduction went far beyond what is commonly described as a “haircut” in insolvency proceedings.
The NCLT proceedings followed a difference of opinion between two members, after which the matter was referred to a third member. The tribunal held that the repayment proposal met the requirements for approval under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and rejected objections raised against the plan. The plan had secured 80.81 per cent approval among creditors, while dissenting creditors accounted for less than 20 per cent of the voting share. The tribunal observed that it could not substitute its assessment for the commercial decision of creditors as long as the proposal complied with the requirements of the insolvency law.
Subhash Chandra disputes claims
Chandra, meanwhile, rejected the manner in which the insolvency proceedings had been portrayed and said reports equating the total claims filed by lenders with his personal borrowings presented an inaccurate picture. He maintained that he had not personally borrowed money from the lenders and that the proceedings related to personal guarantees given for loans taken by companies associated with the Essel Group.
According to Chandra, lenders had filed claims of around Rs 22,006 crore, of which approximately Rs 21,696 crore had been admitted. He said lenders opposing his repayment plan accounted for claims of Rs 3,992 crore. Of that amount, Rs 620 crore had already been settled, leaving about Rs 3,372 crore, Chandra said. The controversy has brought renewed political attention to the insolvency framework and the size of reductions creditors sometimes accept during resolution proceedings, with the Congress using the case to accuse the Centre of applying different standards to ordinary borrowers and large business interests.