The article critically examines the Indian judiciary’s handling of the DHFL insolvency case under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), questioning whether justice is becoming a mere formality. It highlights the overarching dominance of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the insolvency resolution process, where their decisions are treated as final with minimal judicial scrutiny. This unchecked supremacy, the article argues, has allegedly led courts—including the Supreme Court—to endorse CoC decisions without thorough examination, thereby reducing judicial oversight to a ritualistic procedure. A major concern is the exclusion of the Wadhawan family from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), despite their offer to repay the entire debt, and the opaque handling of their final settlement proposal, which was not shared with Fixed Deposit and Non-Convertible Debenture holders who held considerable voting power. The piece further raises serious questions about potential biases within the CoC, particularly the preference shown toward a specific bidder, and criticizes the judiciary for failing to probe these allegations effectively. Ultimately, it calls for greater judicial accountability and intervention to uphold justice, transparency, and fairness, especially in high-stakes financial cases affecting a wide spectrum of stakeholders.