A 2020 Committee Said Leave IBBI. A 2026 Bill Makes It Permanent.

As things stand today, IBBI is not named in Section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 at all. The section only requires that a valuer be "registered as a valuer... in such manner, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed," leaving the identity of the regulator to be filled in later. It was filled in through Section 458, a general delegation power letting the Central Government hand any of its functions under the Act to an authority named by notification. That notification, GSR 1316(E) dated 18 October 2017, is the entire legal basis for IBBI regulating valuers, a history covered in more detail in Why India Carved Out a Separate Profession Just for Valuation. Nine years into that arrangement, IBBI's authority over registered valuers still rests on a notification, not on a line in the Companies Act naming it as the regulator.

On 30 August 2019, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs constituted a Committee of Experts to examine whether valuers needed a dedicated institutional framework, chaired by M. S. Sahoo, at the time serving as IBBI's own Chairperson. The Committee submitted its report, along with a Draft Valuers Bill, 2020, on 31 March 2020, opened for public comment until 14 May 2020. Its central recommendation was to move valuer regulation out of IBBI altogether and into a new standalone statutory body, a National Institute of Valuers, with existing professional valuer organisations continuing to function as front-line regulators underneath it. The scope proposed was wider than Section 247 valuations too, reaching toward all valuation-related services in the country, not just Companies Act and IBC work.

The irony is built into the committee's own composition: the person best positioned to recommend that IBBI give up this function was the person running IBBI at the time. The Draft Valuers Bill, 2020 was never introduced in Parliament and never enacted. It sits on the record as a shelved proposal, not a repealed one.

The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 85 of 2026) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 23 March 2026 and referred the same day to a Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by Sudheer Gupta. Clause 73 of that Bill amends Section 247 to designate IBBI directly as the "Valuation Authority," giving it the power to grant certificates of registration and recognition to registered valuers and their organisations, to recommend valuation standards to the Central Government, and to enforce compliance, including suspending a valuer's certificate for up to ten years or imposing a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh.

A companion provision inserts a new Section 33-A, extending the same registered-valuer framework to LLPs, covering valuation of partner contributions, assets, net worth, and liabilities on a mutatis mutandis basis. A separate clause requires that valuers for company-law purposes be appointed by the Audit Committee through a formal resolution, not left to management alone.

Where the 2017 notification made IBBI a regulator by delegation, revocable in principle by a later notification, Clause 73 would make it a regulator by name in the Act itself. That is a materially different kind of permanence.

Legal commentary on Clause 73 has treated it as a live, contested choice rather than a settled improvement. The core objection is a mandate mismatch: valuation work spans mergers and acquisitions, fund-raising, buy-backs, related-party transactions, financial reporting, taxation, and family settlements, none of which sits inside IBBI's institutional core of insolvency resolution. A second objection is capacity, since IBBI would now be expected to oversee land and building, plant and machinery, and securities and financial assets on top of an insolvency docket that is already under strain.

A third is independence: where a valuer is working inside an active IBC proceeding, having the same regulator overseeing both the insolvency process and the valuer's discipline inside it creates, at minimum, an appearance problem. No major jurisdiction commonly cited as a comparator, not the UK's RICS model, Singapore's Institute of Valuers, or Australia's ASIC, houses valuer regulation inside its insolvency regulator.

What the Bill's own Statement of Objects and Reasons does not do is explain the reversal. It does not reference the 2020 Committee, the Draft Valuers Bill, or the National Institute of Valuers concept at all. A government committee, chaired by IBBI's own chief, once concluded this function should not sit inside IBBI. Six years later, a Bill puts it there permanently, without engaging that earlier conclusion on the record.

As of this writing, the Joint Parliamentary Committee has begun its work but has not yet tabled a report in either House, and the Bill has not been passed. Two things are worth stating plainly rather than guessing at. First, whether the Committee will ultimately endorse, amend, or question Clause 73 is not established from the public record available at the time of writing. Second, no public representation from ICAI RVO, ICMAI RVO, ICSI RVO, or the Institution of Valuers on the Clause 73 question has surfaced publicly either, despite those bodies being the front-line regulators most directly affected by whichever way this settles.

Separately from the Bill, IBBI has already been acting the part it would be formally given. A discussion paper released 18 November 2025 proposed collapsing the current split, where CIRP valuations follow internationally accepted valuation standards while liquidation valuations follow the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017, into one unified standard, alongside a broadened fair-value definition and a new Coordinator Valuer role for larger matters. Clause 73 would not be creating IBBI's regulatory posture toward valuers from nothing. It would be ratifying, in the Act itself, a role IBBI has been building out in practice regardless of what Parliament eventually does with the Bill.

Nothing changes for a registered valuer's day-to-day obligations the moment this Bill is discussed; Section 247 as it stands today is unchanged until an enacted amendment says otherwise. What is worth tracking is the direction, not the current text. The government's own 2020 committee, chaired by the insolvency regulator's own chief, concluded valuer regulation was a mismatch for IBBI and should move to a dedicated body. The 2026 Bill, still short of passage, proposes the opposite outcome with no public account of what changed its mind. Whichever way Clause 73 lands, it settles a question this profession has actually had open since 2017: whether IBBI's role here was always meant to be permanent, or was a placeholder that outlasted its own logic.