SBI filed a petition in the Supreme Court: In the matter of declaring the account fraud

State Bank of India (SBI) has recently filed a petition in the Supreme Court. In this petition, SBI has sought clarification on the decision of the Supreme Court, in which the court had said that before putting the account of any loan-taking customer in the category of fraud, they should be heard, that is, they should be heard.
SBI has filed the petition fearing that in the absence of the clarification, the Supreme Court's decision could be misinterpreted. The bank has said in the petition that it should be clarified that the Supreme Court in its judgment did not state that any 'personal hearing' should be given to the borrower.
It has been contended on behalf of the bank that a hearing can be misconstrued as a personal hearing. On this basis, litigation can be expected from those defaulters whose default has contributed to the weakening of the financial condition of the banks. Due to this, the economy of the country has also been affected. SBI has said in the petition that there is an apprehension that the defaulting customers may raise the question of a personal hearing and may try to delay the decisions in the absence of the prescribed time limit.
The bank also said in the petition that the submission of the complete forensic report would hamper the investigation by the enforcement agencies. Because due to the disclosure of confidential and critical information, the defaulters will get a warning. SBI has suggested to the court in the petition that it should be clarified that only relevant things from the forensic audit report should be given to the borrower as a part of the hearing.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the classification of accounts as fraud adversely affects the lives of borrowers. Therefore, such persons should be given an opportunity of being heard.
The Supreme Court had said that the principal of Audi Alterum Partum should also be read. Audi alterm partem means the principle of natural justice. Under this, no person shall be declared guilty without trial. In this principle, every person gets an opportunity of being heard.
The verdict was pronounced on a petition by the State Bank of India. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli upheld the decision given by the Telangana High Court in 2020.
Actually, SBI had filed a petition in the Supreme Court against a decision of the Telangana High Court. The Telangana High Court ruled in the year 2020 on a petition by Rajesh Aggarwal that the account holder should be given an opportunity of a hearing before declaring any account as a fraud.