Supreme Court Orders SBI, PNB to Clarify Loan Status After Man Alleges Wrongful Negative CIBIL Score [Read Order]

The Supreme Court has intervened in a case involving alleged wrongful credit reporting and PAN duplication, directing Punjab National Bank (PNB) and State Bank of India (SBI) to file affidavits clarifying whether the petitioner has ever availed any loan or committed any default.

The order came during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition arising from a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which the petitioner Rajendra Singh Panwar, claimed had failed to address his grievance despite earlier directions from the apex court.

GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here

Appearing before the Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, senior advocate P.S. Patwalia submitted that the petitioner had been suffering severe financial consequences since 2020 due to a persistently negative CIBIL score, even though he had no outstanding loans.

According to the petitioner, the issue stemmed from the fact that his original PAN was also held by two other individuals bearing the same name, leading to a mix‑up in credit reporting.

He argued that defaults or adverse entries attributable to those individuals were being incorrectly mapped to his credit profile, preventing him from accessing financial facilities for nearly five years.

The petitioner further informed the Court that the Income Tax Department had acknowledged the duplication and issued him a new PAN. However, despite the correction, his CIBIL score continued to reflect a “very high risk” category, allegedly because the new PAN remained linked to the old one in the databases used by credit bureaus and banks.

CIBIL, for its part, reportedly stated that it merely collates information provided by banks and does not independently verify or alter loan‑related data.

Noting that the banks’ version was essential to resolving the dispute, the Supreme Court observed that neither PNB nor SBI had been heard so far. The Bench directed both banks to file affidavits clearly stating whether the petitioner had ever taken any loan from them and whether any default existed in his name. The Court also allowed an impleadment application to ensure all necessary parties were before it.

The Bench condoned the delay in refilling the petition and dispensed with the personal appearance of the respondents. Emphasising the need for clarity before proceeding further, the Court issued notice and listed the matter for 9 January 2026.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates