Bombay High Court Asks Yes Bank To Pay 50K Compensation For Insisting Upon Aadhaar Card For Opening Account
The Petition before the Bombay High Court was filed by a Petitioner, who could not rent out his premises on rent due to a lack of a bank account.
Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Jitendra Jain, Bombay High Court
While directing Yes Bank to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 to a litigant for insisting upon Aadhar Card for opening of account, the Bombay High Court has made it clear that September 26, 2018 onwards, accounts could be opened without insisting upon Aadhar Card.
The Petition before the High Court was filed by a Petitioner, who could not rent out his premises on rent due to a lack of a bank account.
The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak & Justice Jitendra Jain said, “However, Justice Puttaswamy’s case was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26th September 2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the requirement of providing an Aadhar Card for opening a Bank account. Therefore, from 26th September 2018 onwards, there was no impediment to the Respondent-Bank opening the Bank account without insisting on the Aadhaar Card.”
Advocate Niyam Bhasin represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The Petitioner had premises in Bombay, and there were considerable difficulties in renting out these premises due to the lack of a Bank account in the name of the Petitioner. The Petitioner applied to the Respondent-Bank for the opening of a Bank account, and the Bank informed the Petitioner that providing an Aadhar Card was mandatory.
The Petitioner represented to the Bank and even pointed out interim orders made by the Supreme Court, suggesting that insisting on an Aadhaar Card for opening a Bank account was not legal or proper. However, since the Respondent-Bank did not yield, the Petitioner instituted the Petition. Following the Court’s order, the Respondent-Bank opened a Bank account in the name of the Petitioner. However, it was the petitioner’s case that the Rule was issued on the prayer for damages in the order, and the Bank was also given an opportunity to file its reply insofar as the prayer for damages was concerned. The Respondent-Bank had not bothered to file any reply on the aspect of the prayer for compensation.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that in April 2018, when the Bank insisted upon the Petitioner’s Aadhar Card, there interim orders made by the Supreme Court in the case of Justice Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr vs Union of India & Ors (2012) were operating. The orders prima facie suggested that at the relevant time, Bank accounts were to be opened only if a party could produce proof of having applied for an Aadhaar Card. The Bench further noticed that Justice Puttaswamy’s case was finally disposed of, and the Court struck down the requirement of providing an Aadhar Card for opening a Bank account. As per the Bench, from September 26, 2018 onwards, there was no impediment on the Bank to open the account without insisting on the Aadhaar Card. The Bank account was ultimately opened in January 2019 in the name of the Petitioner.
“Considering the above circumstances, we believe that the claim for compensation in the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs is exaggerated and cannot be granted. However, we agree with the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no justification for not opening the Bank account after 26th September 2018. The Bank account was ultimately opened in January 2019. Therefore, for a period of three to four months, the Petitioner was unable to rent out the premises”, it said.
Thus, the Bench directed the Respondent-Bank to pay the Petitioner compensation of Rs. 50,000 within eight weeks from the date on which the Petitioner provides a copy of this order to the Respondent-Bank.
Cause Title: Microfibers Pvt Ltd v. Yes Bank Ltd & Ors. (Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2018)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Niyam Bhasin
