The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to provide a time-bound process to resolve insolvency among companies and individuals.  Insolvency is a situation where an individual or company is unable to repay their outstanding debt.  Last month, the government promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 amending certain provisions of the Code.  The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Bill, 2018, which replaces this Ordinance, was introduced in Lok Sabha last week and is scheduled to be passed in the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament.  In light of this, we discuss some of the changes being proposed under the Bill and possible implications of such changes.

What was the need for amending the Code?

In November 2017, the Insolvency Law Committee was set up to review the Code, identify issues in its implementation, and suggest changes.  The Committee submitted its report in March 2018.  It made several recommendations, such as treating allottees under a real estate project as financial creditors, exempting micro, small and medium enterprises from certain provisions of the Code, reducing voting thresholds of the committee of creditors, among others.  Subsequently, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, was promulgated on June 6, 2018, incorporating these recommendations.

What amendments have been proposed regarding real estate allottees?

The Code defines a financial creditor as anyone who has extended any kind of loan or financial credit to the debtor.  The Bill clarifies that an allottee under a real estate project (a buyer of an under-construction residential or commercial property) will be considered as a financial creditor.  These allottees will be represented on the committee of creditors by an authorised representative who will vote on their behalf.

This committee is responsible for taking key decisions related to the resolution process, such as appointing the resolution professional, and approving the resolution plan to be submitted to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).  It also implies that real estate allottees can initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process against the debtor.

Can the amount raised by real estate allottees be considered as financial debt?

The Insolvency Law Committee (2017) had noted that the amount paid by allottees under a real estate project is a means of raising finance for the project, and hence would classify as financial debt.  It had also noted that, in certain cases, allottees provide more money towards a real estate project than banks.  The Bill provides that the amount raised from allottees during the sale of a real estate project would have the commercial effect of a borrowing, and therefore be considered as a financial debt for the real estate company (or the debtor).

However, it may be argued that the money raised from allottees under a real estate project is an advance payment for a future asset (or the property allotted to them).  It is not an explicit loan given to the developer against receipt of interest, or similar consideration for the time value of money, and therefore may not qualify as financial debt.

Do the amendments affect the priority of real estate allottees in the waterfall under liquidation?

During the corporate insolvency resolution process, a committee of creditors (comprising of all financial creditors) may choose to: (i) resolve the debtor company, or (ii) liquidate (sell) the debtor’s assets to repay loans.  If no decision is made by the committee within the prescribed time period, the debtor’s assets are liquidated to repay the debt.  In case of liquidation, secured creditors are paid first after payment of the resolution fees and other resolution costs.  Secured creditors are those whose loans are backed by collateral (security).  This is followed by payment of employee wages, and then payment to all the unsecured creditors.

While the Bill classifies allottees as financial creditors, it does not specify whether they would be treated as secured or unsecured creditors.  Therefore, their position in the order of priority is not clear.

What amendments have been proposed regarding Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)?

Earlier this year, the Code was amended to prohibit certain persons from submitting a resolution plan.  These include: (i) wilful defaulters, (ii) promoters or management of the company if it has an outstanding non-performing asset (NPA) for over a year, and (iii) disqualified directors, among others.  Further, it barred the sale of property of a defaulter to such persons during liquidation.  One of the concerns raised was that in case of some MSMEs, the promoter may be the only person submitting a plan to revive the company.  In such cases, the defaulting firm will go into liquidation even if there could have been a viable resolution plan.

The Bill amends the criteria which prohibits certain persons from submitting a resolution plan.  For example, the Code prohibits a person from being a resolution applicant if his account has been identified as a NPA for more than a year.  The Bill provides that this criterion will not apply if such an applicant is a financial entity, and is not a related party to the debtor (with certain exceptions).  Further, if the NPA was acquired under a resolution plan under this Code, then this criterion will not apply for a period of three years (instead of one).  Secondly, the Code also bars a guarantor of a defaulter from being an applicant.  The Bill specifies that such a bar will apply if such guarantee has been invoked by the creditor and remains unpaid.

In addition to amending these criteria, the Bill also states that the ineligibility criteria for resolution applicants regarding NPAs and guarantors will not be applicable to persons applying for resolution of MSMEs.  The central government may, in public interest, modify or remove other provisions of the Code while applying them to MSMEs.

What are some of the other key changes being proposed?

The Bill also makes certain changes to the procedures under the Code.  Under the Code, all decisions of the committee of creditors have to be taken by a 75% majority of the financial creditors.  The Bill lowers this threshold to 51%.  For certain key decisions, such as appointment of a resolution professional, approving the resolution plan, and making structural changes to the company, the voting threshold has been reduced from 75% to 66%.

The Bill also provides for withdrawal of a resolution application, after the resolution process has been initiated with the NCLT.  Such withdrawal will have to be approved by a 90% vote of the committee of creditors.

Mr. Ramnath Kovind completes his tenure as President in July.  With the Election Commission of India expected to notify the election dates this week, we look at how India will elect its next President.  

As the Head of the State, the President is a key part of Parliament.  The President calls the two Houses of Parliament into session on the advice of the Council of Ministers.  A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha does not become a law unless assented to by the President.  Further, when Parliament is not in session, the President holds the power to sign a law with immediate effect through an Ordinance.

Who elects the President?

The manner of election of the President is provided in Article 55 of the Constitution.  Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs) including elected representatives from the Union Territories (UTs) of Delhi and Puducherry form the electoral college, which elects the President.  At least 50 elected representatives must propose a candidate, who must then be seconded by 50 other electors to run for the President's office.  Members of Legislative Councils and the 12 nominated members of Rajya Sabha do not participate in the voting process.

The history behind having proposers and seconders 
The requirement of having a certain number of electors propose a candidate was introduced after the experience of the first five Presidential elections.  It was common then for several candidates to put themselves up for election when they did not have a remote chance of getting elected.  In the 1967 Presidential elections, 17 candidates contested, but nine of them did not win a single vote.  This repeated again in the 1969 elections, when out of 15 candidates, five did not secure any votes.

To discourage the practice, candidates had to secure at least 10 proposers and seconders each to contest the elections from the 1974 election onwards.  A compulsory security deposit of Rs 2,500 was also introduced.  The changes were brought in through an amendment to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Act, 1952

In 1997, the Act was further amended to increase the security deposit to Rs 15,000 and the minimum number of proposers and seconders to 50 each.


How are the votes calculated?

The Presidential election uses a special voting to tally the votes.  A different voting weightage is assigned to an MP and an MLA.  The value of each MLA's vote is determined based on the population of their state and the number of MLAs.  For instance, an MLA from UP has a value of 208 while an MLA from Sikkim has 7 (see Table 1).  Due to a Constitutional Amendment passed in 2002, the population of the state as per the 1971 census is taken for the calculation.

The value of an MP's vote is the sum of all votes of MLAs across the country divided by the number of elected MPs.  

How will the numbers look in 2022?

In the 2017 Presidential elections, electors from 31 states and the UTs of Delhi and Puducherry participated. However, in 2019, with the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Reorganization Act, the number of states were reduced to 30. The J&K Assembly was dissolved as per the Act and a new legislature for the UT of J&K is yet to be reconstituted. UTs with legislatures were not originally part of the electoral college for the election of the President. The Constitution was amended in 1992 to specifically include the UTs of Delhi and Puducherry. Note that for MLAs from J&K to participate in future Presidential elections, a similar Constitutional amendment would be required to be passed by Parliament.

Based on the assumption that J&K is not included in the 2022 Presidential election, the total number of votes of MLAs in 2022 elections will have to be adjusted.  The 87 Jammu and Kashmir MLAs must be removed from the total number of MLAs of 4,120.  Jammu and Kashmir’s contributing vote share of 6,264 must also be reduced from the total vote share of 549,495.  Adjusting for these changes, 4,033 MLAs will participate in the 2022 elections and the combined vote share of all MLAs will add up to 543,231.

Table 1: The value of votes of elected MLAs of different states at the 2017 Presidential Election

Name of State

Number of Assembly seats

Population (1971 Census)

Value of vote of each MLA

Total value of votes for the state (B x D)

A

B

C

D

E

Andhra Pradesh

175

2,78,00,586

159

27,825

Arunachal Pradesh

60

4,67,511

8

480

Assam

126

1,46,25,152

116

14,616

Bihar

243

4,21,26,236

173

42,039

Chhattisgarh

90

1,16,37,494

129

11,610

Goa

40

7,95,120

20

800

Gujarat

182

2,66,97,475

147

26,754

Haryana

90

1,00,36,808

112

10,080

Himachal Pradesh

68

34,60,434

51

3,468

Jammu and Kashmir

87

63,00,000

72

6,264

Jharkhand

81

1,42,27,133

176

14,256

Karnataka

224

2,92,99,014

131

29,344

Kerala

140

2,13,47,375

152

21,280

Madhya Pradesh

230

3,00,16,625

131

30,130

Maharashtra

288

5,04,12,235

175

50,400

Manipur

60

10,72,753

18

1,080

Meghalaya

60

10,11,699

17

1,020

Mizoram

40

3,32,390

8

320

Nagaland

60

5,16,449

9

540

Odisha

147

2,19,44,615

149

21,903

Punjab

117

1,35,51,060

116

13,572

Rajasthan

200

2,57,65,806

129

25,800

Sikkim

32

2,09,843

7

224

Tamil Nadu

234

4,11,99,168

176

41,184

Telangana

119

1,57,02,122

132

15,708

Tripura

60

15,56,342

26

1,560

Uttarakhand

70

44,91,239

64

4,480

Uttar Pradesh

403

8,38,49,905

208

83,824

West Bengal

294

4,43,12,011

151

44,394

NCT of Delhi

70

40,65,698

58

4,060

Puducherry

30

4,71,707

16

480

Total

4,120

54,93,02,005

 

5,49,495

Source: Election Commission of India (2017); PRS.

The value of an MP’s vote correspondingly will change from 708 in 2017 to 700 in 2022. 

Value of one MP's vote =   Total value of all votes of MLAs      =   543231     =    700 
                                              Total number of elected MPs                 776

Note that the value of an MP’s vote is rounded off to the closest whole number. This brings the combined value of the votes of all MPs to 543,200 (700 x 776). 

What is the number of votes required to win?

The voting for the Presidential elections is done through the system of single transferable vote. In this system, electors rank the candidates in the order of their preference. The winning candidate must secure more than half of the total value of valid votes to win the election. This is known as the quota. 

Assuming that each elector casts his vote and that each vote is valid:

Quota = Total value of MP’s votes + Total value of MLA’s votes + 1                                                        
                                                        2

= 543200 + 543231 +1     =   1086431 +1     =    543,216 
                2                                   2

The anti-defection law which disallows MPs from crossing the party line does not apply to the Presidential election. This means that the MPs and MLAs can keep their ballot secret.  

The counting of votes takes place in rounds. In Round 1, only the first preference marked on each ballot is counted. If any of the candidates secures the quota at this stage, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate secures the quota in the first round, then another round of counting takes place. In this round, the votes cast to the candidate who secures the least number of votes in Round 1 are transferred. This means that these votes are now added to the second preference candidate marked on each ballot. This process is repeated till only one candidate remains. Note that it is not compulsory for an elector to mark his preference for all candidates. If no second preference is marked, then the ballots are treated as exhausted ballots in Round 2 and are not counted further.  

The fifth Presidential election which elected Mr. VV Giri is the only instance when a candidate did not secure the quota in the first round.  The second preference votes were then evaluated and Mr. Giri secured 4,20,077 of the 8,36,337 votes and was declared the President.

The only President of India to win unopposed 
India’s sixth President, Mr. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy who served from 1977 to 1982 was the only President to be elected unopposed.  37 candidates had filed their nominations for the 1977 elections, however on scrutiny, the nomination papers of 36 candidates were rejected by the Returning Officer and Mr. Reddy was the only candidate standing.