Negative CIBIL Rating Challenged By Litigant Claiming No Loan Was Taken ; Supreme Court Seeks Affidavits From SBI & PNB
The petitioner alleged that two other individuals with the same name as him were issued the same PAN number, and the loans taken by them have adversely affected his CIBIL score.
In a plea alleging that the petitioner's CIBIL score has been wrongly shown as negative, the Supreme Court on Monday directed Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India to file affidavits stating whether he has any loan and whether he has ever defaulted.A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti was dealing with the petitioner's grievance that his credit score has...
In a plea alleging that the petitioner's CIBIL score has been wrongly shown as negative, the Supreme Court on Monday directed Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India to file affidavits stating whether he has any loan and whether he has ever defaulted.
A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti was dealing with the petitioner's grievance that his credit score has shown negative since 2020 despite there being no loan and no default, which has prevented him from availing financial facilities.
“We do not have the versions of the banks, namely, Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India. We want both the Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India to file affidavit setting out whether the petitioner has any loan and if there is any default”, the Court ordered.
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia for the petitioner Rajendra Singh Panwar said that although the Supreme Court had earlier passed an order on July 30, 2024 the High Court had not examined or addressed the grievance.
He submitted that the petitioner's PAN number is also held by two other individuals, also named Rajendra Singh, and that any default by them is being reflected in his CIBIL records. He added that even after the Income Tax Department issued a new PAN number, the petitioner continues to face a very high-risk score because the new PAN is linked to the old one.
The Court noted CIBIL's stand that it only collates information furnished by banks. The Court sought affidavits from Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India on the petitioner's loan status and any default.
The Court issued notice, dispensed with the personal appearance of the respondents and listed the matter on January 09, 2026.
Panwar approached the Supreme Court after the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of its order directing CIBIL, Mumbai to decide his representation regarding the issues in his CIBIL score within three months.
The High Court closed his first contempt petition after CIBIL Chairman Mavila Vishwanathan Nair stated that a decision had been taken on his representation. He then filed another contempt petition on the same issue.
The High Court dismissed it on the ground that the Chairman had already stated in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier contempt case that a decision had been taken, and there was no reason to enforce the same order again. The petitioner challenged this order in the present SLP before the Supreme Court.
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59436/2025
Case Title – Rajendra Singh Panwar v. Jay Prakash & Anr.