On 25 January 2019 a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the *Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016* in its entirety against a battery of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A challenges. The judgment installed an intelligible-differentia rationale for the financial-creditor / operational-creditor distinction, read down *Section 29A* to confine its sweep to specified categories of ineligible resolution applicants, and directed practical fixes to the *NCLT / NCLAT* tribunal architecture including circuit benches. The 'defaulter's paradise is lost' framing has organised the post-2019 narrative on the Code's transformative purpose.
On 26 May 2026, the Supreme Court held that a party who participates in arbitral proceedings after the arbitrator's mandate has expired — without objection — cannot later challenge the award on the ground of expired mandate. A close reading of the doctrine, its interaction with the Court's earlier 2026 rulings on Section 29A, and what it means for the practitioner advising on tribunal continuity.