IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bjd/wpaper/1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lost in translation: Legislative drafting and judicial discretion

Author

Listed:
  • Madhav Goel

    (TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation)

  • Renuka Sane

    (TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation)

Abstract

This paper studies an instance of ambiguous drafting and the subsequent exercise of judicial discretion in the context of a Supreme Court decision in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Commission's (BLRC) had clearly recommended that the judiciary not have any discretion on accepting an insolvency petition once the objective criteria for admitting it were met. The legislation, however, provided no rationale for why it chose to ignore the BLRC report and allow for the possibility of discretion, with the use of the word "may", while adjudicating applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Supreme Court used the phrase "may" to hold that the judiciary has the discretion to not admit applications under Section 7. The Court also did not provide tests for exercise of this discretion or for determination of insolvency. Since this decision, thirteen petitions under Section 7 have been dismissed. Litigation and delayed timelines caused as a result of this discretionary power will result in erosion of the economic value of the Corporate Debtor's assets, and make financial creditors more wary of extending credit. The paper underscores the need to improve the quality of drafting and the importance of tempering judicial decisions with a practical understanding of commercial realities.

Suggested Citation

  • Madhav Goel & Renuka Sane, 2023. "Lost in translation: Legislative drafting and judicial discretion," Working Papers 1, Trustbridge Rule of Law Foundation.
  • Handle: RePEc:bjd:wpaper:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://trustbridge.in/RePEc/papers/2023Goeletal_LostInTranslationLegislativeDraftingAndJudicialDiscretion.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2023
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Drafting; Legislation;

    JEL classification:

    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bjd:wpaper:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Latha Subramanian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/trustin.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.