The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), since its inception, has been a dynamic legislation, evolving by amendments to overcome the shortcomings identified, during its application in resolving insolvency of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals. The judiciary too has played a constructive role in the development of insolvency resolution regime in India, by highlighting IBC’s flaws and by innovating impromptu solutions. A trend observed in the emerging jurisprudence surrounding IBC is, the purposive construction and interpretation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) provisions, to serve the primary objectives of IBC. This practice has extended to introduction of experimental procedures by the judiciary, some of which tend to supersede or undermine the extant provisions of IBC. One such experiment, going by the term Reverse CIRP, is being carried out for resolution of insolvency of real estate entities. Reverse CIRP, which is not statutorily recognized under the IBC, substitutes the application of CIRP and a few other provisions of the IBC, introduced to prevent, the circumvention of IBC’s objectives and, derailment of the CIRP process. Consequently, widespread discussions are being conducted on legality of the process and its fit into the overall scheme of IBC. This essay scrutinizes the Reverse CIRP in terms of, its compliance with the objectives of IBC, divergence from existing procedures within the IBC, and its efficacy in catering to specific needs of the real estate sector. The essay demonstrates how Reverse CIRP can possibly be integrated with other procedures for insolvency resolution, within the scheme of IBC
