Bombay High Court Fines Yes Bank Rs 50K For Forcing Aadhaar Despite SC Ban
Thanks for studying this publish, do not forget to subscribe!
Sure Financial institution refused to open an organization’s account with out Aadhaar, violating SC orders. Bombay HC ordered Rs 50,000 compensation for unlawful insistence on Aadhaar.
Mumbai: At the moment, on June 30, in a current and vital ruling, the Bombay Excessive Court docket slammed Sure Financial institution Ltd for insisting on an Aadhaar Card as a compulsory doc to open a checking account, regardless of the Supreme Court docket having already dominated in opposition to such compulsion.
The Court docket ordered the financial institution to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to Microfibers Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner firm, for the hardship prompted because of the refusal to open a checking account with out Aadhaar.
Also Read: “Juristic Entity Can’t Have Mens Rea”: SC Quashed Criminal Case Against HDFC Bank
The case was heard underneath Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2018 by a Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain.
The oral judgment was delivered on Twenty sixth June 2025, and it firmly underlines that non-public entities like banks can’t demand Aadhaar as a precondition, as per the landmark Supreme Court docket verdict putting down Part 57 of the Aadhaar Act.
The Background
Microfibers Pvt Ltd, the petitioner firm, confronted difficulties in renting out its premises in Bombay because of the absence of a checking account in its title.
To resolve this, the corporate utilized to Sure Financial institution in January 2018 to open a checking account. Nonetheless, Sure Financial institution denied the request, stating that an Aadhaar Card was necessary.
As per the court docket doc, it was said:
“By communication dated 24-Twenty sixth April 2018, the Respondent-Financial institution knowledgeable the Petitioner that offering an Aadhaar Card was necessary. With out an Aadhaar Card, no Checking account could be opened within the title of the Petitioner.”
Regardless of the service of discover within the writ proceedings, no consultant of the Financial institution or their Advocates appeared earlier than the Court docket, whereas Mr. Niyam Bhasin appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Court docket’s Observations
The court docket expressed concern that the financial institution had taken such a inflexible stance even when the Supreme Court docket of India had dominated in opposition to necessary Aadhaar for personal service suppliers.
The Bombay Excessive Court docket famous that:
“No reply was filed by the Financial institution on the prayer for compensation, regardless of a possibility being granted.”
Nonetheless, the judges didn’t ignore a vital improvement. Sure Financial institution later admitted that Aadhaar was not necessary after the SC judgment:
“We can’t ignore the truth that the Respondent-Financial institution, on twenty ninth November 2018, made a press release that it could open the Checking account with out insisting on an Aadhaar Card, given the choice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court docket.”
The Verdict
After contemplating the circumstances in totality, the Court docket handed the next order:
“We direct the Respondent-Financial institution to pay the Petitioner compensation of Rs. 50,000/- inside a interval of eight weeks from the date on which the Petitioner offers a replica of this order to the Respondent-Financial institution.”
Lastly, the bench disposed of the petition with the next path:
“The Rule on this Petition is disposed of with the above instructions. There shall, nevertheless, be no order as to prices. All involved are to behave on an authenticated copy of this order.”
Authorized Significance
This judgment serves as a transparent reminder to all personal entities—together with banks, cellular operators, faculties, schools, and corporations—that they can’t compel residents to supply Aadhaar as a situation to entry providers, particularly after Part 57 of the Aadhaar Act was struck down.
Also Read: Calcutta HC Orders PNB to Pay Rs. 3 Lakh for Inhuman Treatment of Disabled Bank Official
Failure to stick to this will now end in authorized motion and damages, as proven on this case the place the petitioner succeeded in claiming compensation.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Yes Bank
