Bank strike stands on 27th January

IBA CALLED UFBU ON 22.01.2026 FOR 5DAYS BANKING

State-run banks write off Rs 6.15 lakh cr of loans in 5.5 years

Public sector banks have written off loans worth Rs 6.15 lakh crore in the last five and a half years, Parliament was informed on Monday.

In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for finance Pankaj Chaudhary said, “According to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data, PSBs have written-off an aggregate loan amount of Rs 6,15,647 crore, during the last five financial years and the current financial year till September 30, 2025 (provisional data).”

For the first six months of the current financial year, the loan write-off of PSBs stood at Rs 42,035 crore.

During this April-September period, the PSBs recovered Rs 37,253 crore of bad loans.

For the previous full=fiscal, state-run banks had written off loans worth Rs 1.14 lakh crore. This was lower than Rs 1.18 lakh crore in the year-ago period. 

The process followed RBI guidelines of provisioning of non-performing assets (NPAs) and those of the policy of the board of the banks, even as such write-offs did not result in waiver of liabilities of borrowers to repay.

Recovery in written-off loans is an ongoing process and banks continue pursuing their recovery actions initiated against borrowers under the various recovery mechanism available to them, such as filing of a suit in civil courts or in debt recovery tribunals (DRT), action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act 2002, filing of cases in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 etc.

As provisioning for bad loans has already been done and the write-off process does not entail any actual cash outflow, the bank’s liquidity position remains intact, Chaudhary informed the Lok Sabha.

Moreover, banks evaluate/consider the impact of write-offs as part of their regular exercise to clean up their balance-sheet, avail tax benefit, optimise capital base, enhance lending capacity and boost investor sentiments, the minister informed.

Replying to another question, Chaudhary said, banks and financial Institutions have traditionally been the primary source of export finance in India.

The total export credit disbursed by Public Sector Banks, SIDBI and Exim Bank in the last five years (FY 20-21 to FY 24-25) stood at Rs 21.71 lakh crore, he said.

In another reply, Chaudhary said, 5,83,291 fraud cases were registered in the last four and a half years till September 2025 amounting to Rs 3,588.22 crore.

Of this, he said, Rs 238.83 crore have been recovered.

With increasing digital payment transactions in the country, incidence of cyber frauds including digital payment frauds have also gone up in the last few years, he said

RBI for disclosure of NPA, inspection info; banks oppose

Four major banks are opposing disclosure of the list of their defaulters and non-performing assets (NPAs) and the matter is with the Central Information Commission (CIC).

Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank, Yes Bank and State Bank of India have approached the CIC objecting to the disclosure of information such as the list of defaulters and NPA, penalties and inspection reports, even as the RBI termed the records "liable to be disclosed" under the RTI Act, news agency PTI reported.

RTI applicants Dheeraj Mishra, Vathiraj, Girish Mittal and Radha Raman Tiwari had filed separate applications with the RBI, seeking information, such as the top 100 NPAs, willful defaulters of Yes Bank, the inspection report of the SBI and RBL, and documents relating to a Rs 4.34 crore monetary penalty imposed following statutory inspection findings from the Bank of Baroda, respectively, among others.

These banks appealed before the CIC, after the bankers' bank found that the information sought by RTI Applicants could be disclosed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, PTI reported.

Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi referred the matter to a larger bench of the CIC to adjudicate on the issues raised by the banks.

In a series of interim orders, Sethi noted that similar matters were earlier heard by a double bench. Consequently, all cases have been referred to the Chief Information Commissioner for consideration by a larger bench, with disclosure stayed till final decisions are issued.

The outcome of these proceedings is expected to have a far-reaching impact on banking transparency, depositor rights and regulatory accountability, particularly at a time when public scrutiny of NPAs, penalties and supervisory lapses remains intense, PTI reported.

The RBI had sought the views of the banks before disclosure under the Third Party consent provision under Section 11 of the transparency law, under which a public authority seeks the view of the party whose details are being sought by the applicant.

The banks approached the CIC, the country's highest appellate body in RTI matters, with their appeals challenging the RBI's view, which said the information was "liable to be disclosed" under the provisions of the RTI Act, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Jayantilal N. Mistry case, which is binding on it.

The banks claimed that disclosing regulatory information would harm their commercial interests.

In one such case, Bank of Baroda (BoB) challenged the RBI's decision to disclose documents relating to a Rs 4.34 crore monetary penalty imposed following statutory inspection findings, PTI reported.

RTI applicant Radha Raman Tiwari had sought copies of "cases of non-compliance, as recorded in Statutory Inspection for Supervisory Evaluation (ISE 2021)," along with show-cause notices and records evidencing recovery of the penalty.

While BoB objected to disclosure, claiming the information was "confidential and sensitive," the RBI rejected the argument outright.

The RBI Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) recorded that the bank's contention that disclosure "may have an adverse impact on the bank's business, marketability of the bank's product and may hamper the competitive position of the bank, is not tenable."

The RBI further noted that information exempt under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act had already been identified and severed, and therefore "the objections of the BoB are not sustainable".

BoB has since moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the landmark Jayantilal N Mistry judgment, which mandates disclosure of RBI inspection reports, may be reconsidered.

Taking note of this, the CIC observed that the issue "needs deliberation by a larger bench" and temporarily stayed disclosure until final adjudication.

A similar dispute arose involving RBL Bank, which objected to the disclosure of its inspection reports for 2013-14 and 2016-17 sought by RTI applicant Vathiraj.

The RBI, however, relied heavily on Supreme Court precedent, saying that "there is no fiduciary relationship with the RBI and other banks" and that inspection reports fall squarely under the RTI Act.

Quoting the Supreme Court's contempt proceedings in a case, the RBI highlighted that the order had said, "the Respondents are duty-bound to furnish all information relating to inspection reports; Any further violation shall be viewed seriously by this Court".

RBL Bank contended that earlier CIC observations suggested waiting for the outcome of pending writ petitions.

The Commission, however, noted that no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court and that the governing law remains unchanged. As in other cases, the matter has now been referred to a larger bench and disclosure has been deferred.

Yes Bank has also approached the CIC, objecting to the disclosure of data relating to the top 100 NPAs, willful defaulters, and inspection reports of public sector banks sought by Dheeraj Mishra, PTI reported.

The RBI rejected Yes Bank's confidentiality argument, saying unequivocally that "RTI Act, 2005, overrides all earlier laws in order to achieve its objective".

The RBI further observed that the Supreme Court had explicitly upheld disclosure of defaulters' lists, noting that "there is no ambiguity in the judgment' inspection reports and other material' have to be furnished".

Despite this, Yes Bank argued that the Jayantilal Mistry ruling is in doubt. The CIC noted that similar matters had already been decided and again referred the issue to a larger bench, while restraining disclosure for now.

In another case, the State Bank of India (SBI) opposed the disclosure of show-cause notices and RBI's enforcement actions from April 2015 onwards demanded by Girish Mittal in his RTI application.

The RBI held that such documents were "liable to be disclosed" after severing exempt portions under Section 10 of the RTI Act.

The SBI argued that the Supreme Court had not examined exemptions under Section 8(1)(j). The RBI countered this by pointing out that the apex court had clearly ruled that it is "not in a fiduciary relationship with any bank" and must uphold public interest.

Composite Salary Account Package* announced by M/o Finance on 14 Jan 2026 for Central Govt. Employees in association with all Public Sector Banks.

Composite Salary Account Package* announced by M/o Finance on 14 Jan 2026 for Central Govt. Employees in association with all Public Sector Banks.

Major benefits -

• Concessional interest on home, education, vehicle & personal loans

• Personal Accident Cover up to ₹1.5 Cr

• Term Life Insurance up to ₹20 lakh

FIR filed against 6 Officers of Canara Bank in Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh

A big news has been reported from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Action has been taken by EOW in a case involving housing and commercial loans obtained using fake registries. The EOW has filed an FIR against nine people, including six Canara Bank officials.

It was reported that the loans were obtained using forged documents. In Jabalpur, the EOW has filed a case against nine people, including six Canara Bank officials. According to information received, Arif, Ghalib, and Sumit, residents of Adhartal, took a loan from Canara Bank.

The loan of ₹57 lakh was obtained on the basis of forged documents. The involvement of officials from Canara Bank’s RAH (Retail Asset Hub) branch has also been exposed in this case.

Director General, EOW, Upendra Jain said the complaint was filed by the bank’s assistant general manager, Ambika Sharan Singh. According to the complaint, Sumit Singh and Galib Hussain obtained four loans amounting to Rs 57 lakh by submitting fake and fabricated documents.

The accused had applied for loans to open shops and also availed housing loans, however, the proposed projects were never undertaken. The duo allegedly failed to pay any installment and did not return the loan amount.

The police have registered FIR against Sumit Singh, Galib Hussai, Arif Ansari, the then branch manager Deepak Goswami, division manager Gyan Ranjan Tirki, senior manager Sandeep Tiwari, marketing manager Amit Sharma, bank officer Pratidhawani Mishra and bank officer Augustin Khanguveer.

The Retail Asset Hub is a special branch of Canara Bank that handles loan processing. For home loans, the bank also takes a legal report from an advocate approved by the bank.

It is worrying that the advocate could not identify the fake property registration. The bank officers who approved the loan also failed to detect that the property documents were forged.

his incident raises serious questions about the loan approval process in banks. Even though banks have many checks in place, such frauds still happen. This creates doubt about how effective these policies really are.

Whether this happened due to poor checking, heavy workload, or intentional involvement will be known only after the investigation is completed.

Today's discussion failed Bank strike call stands on 27th January