

Mint Explainer: Why SC allowed banks to tag fraud without oral hearings and what it means
In a crucial ruling for the banking sector, the Supreme Court clarified that banks are not required to provide borrowers a personal or oral hearing before classifying their accounts as fraudulent. On Tuesday, the court held that a written process is enough to satisfy principles of natural justice.Mint explains the case, the ruling, and what it means for fraud detection by banks and for borrowers.The case before a two-person Supreme Court bench arose from appeals filed by banks, including State Bank of India and Bank of India, against orders of the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts.
These courts had set aside fraud classifications on the ground that borrowers were not given personal hearings.In these cases, banks had followed RBI’s process by issuing show-cause notices, receiving written replies, and passing reasoned orders, but had not granted oral hearings. Borrowers argued that this violated the Supreme Court’s 2023 Rajesh Agarwal ruling, claiming it required personal hearings and full disclosure of forensic audit reports.The earlier ruling had mandated natural justice but did not clarify whether hearings had to be oral, leading to conflicting interpretations by the high court.
Read on livemint.com