CIBIL score dispute: SC asks PNB, SBI to clarify if petitioner ever took loan or defaulted

New Delhi, Dec 11 The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Punjab National Bank (PNB) and the State Bank of India (SBI) on whether a Uttarakhand resident -- whose CIBIL score has allegedly been shown as negative due to PAN duplication and erroneous reporting -- has ever taken a loan or committed any default.

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti, while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Rajendra Singh Panwar after the Uttarakhand High Court declined to intervene in his contempt plea earlier this year, issued notices to both banks directing them to file detailed affidavits.

The petitioner has contended that despite having no outstanding loan, his CIBIL score has shown a negative status since 2020, rendering him ineligible for any financial facility. He further claimed that his PAN number is shared by two other individuals with the same name, and that their defaults may have been wrongly attributed to him.

Senior advocate P.S. Patwalia, appearing for Panwar, submitted before the Justice Viswanathan-led Bench that even after the Income Tax Department issued him a new PAN, his negative credit score persists because the new number continues to reflect data linked to the old PAN.

The CIBIL Bureau told the apex court that it merely reflects information supplied by banks and plays the role of a "collating agent", going by the records furnished by the banks.

Observing that the banks’ version was necessary to adjudicate the dispute, the bench directed the PNB and the SBI to state clearly whether the petitioner has ever availed a loan and whether any default is recorded against him and listed the matter for further hearing on January 9, 2026.

The SLP stems from a series of proceedings before the Uttarakhand High Court, where the petitioner initially challenged CIBIL’s inaction on his grievance. In February 2020, the Uttarakhand High Court had directed CIBIL to decide his representation within three months. A subsequent contempt petition was closed after CIBIL Chairman M.V. Nair informed the Uttarakhand HC that a decision had been taken.

However, Panwar again approached the Uttarakhand High Court in 2024, alleging renewed disobedience of the same 2020 order. In an order passed on August 7, this year, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari dismissed the second contempt plea, holding that since CIBIL had already stated on affidavit that it had acted on the petitioner’s representation, "there was no reason to issue a fresh notice for enforcement of that very order".

Following the Uttarakhand High Court’s refusal to reopen the contempt proceedings, Panwar filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which has now sought responses from the reporting banks.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor