NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has intervened to resolve the complaint of a man whose credit score remained ‘negative’ for years despite having no outstanding loan or default, prompting banks and Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited CIBIL to finally rectify their records.
This clear example of how faulty credit records can stifle access to finance was presented before a bench of Justices JP Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan. The case arose out of a petition filed by Rajendra Singh Panwar, an Uttarakhand-based businessman, who complained that a negative CIBIL result had effectively barred him from exiting the financial system since 2020, even though he had no outstanding dues.
Panwar’s plea, which was argued through senior advocate B S Patwalia, complained that though he did not obtain “any loan and did not default”, his credit file continued to reflect a negative score, preventing him from availing financial facilities.
He said the problem was exacerbated by confusion over his PAN number, which was shared by others with the same name, leading to fears that others’ mistakes would be attributed to him.
Panwar stated that two other people bearing his name (“Rajendra Singh”) had been given the same PAN number. Errors committed by these individuals allegedly appear in his CIBIL records, preventing access to financial facilities. Even after he got a new PAN from the Income Tax Department, his high risk score continued due to the link between the new and old PANs.
Taking into consideration the issue, the Supreme Court sought direct responses from major lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, asking them to clarify whether Panwar had any outstanding loans or defaults.
What followed revealed the root of the problem. Punjab National Bank, in its affidavit, categorically told the court that it had not reported any loan account or default against Panwar and its records did not reflect any negative credit information at all.
State Bank of India, on its part, clarified in its affidavit that its reports to CIBIL were strictly limited to the facilities already availed by the petitioner and related to the updated PAN details.
With both banks effectively disavowing any negative reports, the focus shifted to the credit information system itself. CIBIL, which initially maintained that it was only collecting data provided by banks, informed the court that the petitioner’s records have now been corrected in view of the clarifications.
Recording these developments, the bench observed that there was nothing left to adjudicate and disposed of the matter, effectively closing the loop on the grievance that had been subsisting for years.
Panwar’s battle certainly began with a writ petition filed five years ago before the Uttarakhand High Court, where he sought directions to rectify his credit records and address the blemishes that had crept into his CIBIL profile. In February 2020, the Supreme Court ordered CIBIL to take a decision on his representation within the stipulated time frame. When this trend did not translate into any meaningful correction on the ground, Panwar was forced to file a contempt of court case, alleging willful disobedience of the court order.
However, in August 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed his contempt plea, leaving him without any substantive relief despite years of pursuing the matter.
It was this chapter that eventually propelled Panwar to the Supreme Court, His petition, filed by advocate Manish Paliwal, challenged the Supreme Court’s 2025 order, prompting the apex court to intervene. The proceedings before the Supreme Court took place on March 20, while the order was issued earlier this week.
For Panwar, the result brings long-awaited relief — a clean credit history after years of being labeled a defaulter for no reason.
