BT EXCLUSIVE: IBBI can’t say how many big personal insolvency plans ended in deep haircuts & says it won’t compile the data

One number set off the debate: ₹6.25 crore repayment against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore, approved by the NCLT in the personal insolvency case of Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra. Then came the question nobody could answer: is that normal? 

Business Today filed a Right to Information (RTI) application to find out. It asked the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), the regulator overseeing insolvency in the country, for details of every personal insolvency resolution plan approved in the last 10 years where admitted claims exceeded ₹200 crore. 

The IBBI has declined to provide it in the form requested. Its appellate authority has now upheld that refusal. 

What Business Today asked for 

For each such case, the RTI sought: 

• the name of the individual, total admitted claims, amount approved for repayment, and the percentages of recovery and haircut; 
• the year, NCLT bench, date of approval and case number; 
• creditor-wise figures: amount claimed, amount admitted and amount actually recovered. 

What the IBBI said 

In its reply dated September 25, 2026, the IBBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) said the information is not maintained in the manner sought. It directed the applicant to the Board’s publications page (https://ibbi.gov.in/publication). 

Business Today appealed, reiterating its request. On November 10, 2026, First Appellate Authority Sanjay Manocha upheld the CPIO’s reply and disposed of the appeal. 

The reasoning 

The order described the request as one for a consolidated statement. Building it would require identifying cases by a claims threshold and breaking them down year-wise and creditor-wise, which “would necessarily involve collation and compilation of information from different records and sources,” it said. 

It set out its position in four points: 

• Because the information is available in the public domain, the CPIO is not obliged to maintain and furnish it in the manner sought. 
• No larger public interest had been demonstrated to justify a direction to compile it. 
• The exercise would “disproportionately divert the resources” of the IBBI under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. 
• It cited the Central Information Commission’s October 1, 2008 decision in Praveen Agarwal vs. SEBI. 

The order concluded that the CPIO’s reply “does not merit any interference.”