The protections conferred on CIRP participants through Section 21(2) show that Part III’s silence creates an arbitrary distinction between two classes of insolvent that Article 14 cannot sustain.

The reference in Surana presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm the underlying philosophy of personal insolvency law.

Until the three-judge bench rules, the operative position is Surana’s bifurcation, reached by a route the statute does not actually require.