This paper discusses the development and application of the doctrine of commercial wisdom within Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) with reference to a landmark case in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited (through Authorised Signatory) v Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, (2020) 8 SCC 531 and cases that have happened thereafter, including 2026 changes. The research is now placed in the wider context of the historical changes in the insolvency regime within India which has changed into a resourceful, disaggregated, debtor-centric system, to a coherent, creditor-centric system that ensures value enhancement and a time-limited resolution. The main question this paper will analyse is the scope used by judicial authorities to interfere with the commercial decision making of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) when approving resolution plans. The proposed case will examine the legal framework on insolvency resolution, appraise the interpretation of commercial wisdom as applied by courts, and determine the effects of the recent legislative changes on the equilibrium between the freedom of creditors and protection of stakeholders. The approach taken is a doctrinal one, which is based on statutory measures, landmark judicial precedents, and secondary legal material. The most important provisions of the IBC such as Sections 7, 12, 30, and 31 are discussed with major case laws in order to comprehend the developing jurisprudence. Practical implications of the 2026 amendments in promoting transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the procedures are also taken into account in the study. As per the findings, the Essar Steel ruling has clearly cemented the primacy of the CoC commercial wisdom and placed a strong restriction of the judicial interference to legal compliance and the procedural irregularity issues. This has increased efficiency, minimized delays and increased investor confidence. The paper concludes by saying that although the doctrine of commercial wisdom is a requirement of an efficient insolvency regime, it has to be counterbalanced with sufficient safeguards to guarantee fairness and transparency. The amendments of 2026 are a positive move in this direction, and they seek to make accountability institutional, without compromising creditor autonomy.