The Bombay High Court has directed Yes Bank Ltd to pay ₹50,000 in compensation to Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. for unjustified delay in opening a bank account after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr v. Union of India & Ors that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for bank accounts.
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain passed the order on 26 June 2025 in Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2018 filed by Microfibers Pvt. Ltd., challenging Yes Bank’s refusal to open an account without furnishing an Aadhaar card.
Background
The petitioner company, having premises in Mumbai, applied for a bank account with Yes Bank in January 2018. The Bank, via communications dated 24–26 April 2018, stated that providing an Aadhaar card was mandatory to open the account.
Despite representations by the petitioner referencing interim orders of the Supreme Court against mandatory Aadhaar requirements, the bank did not relent, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court in June 2018.
Court Proceedings
When the matter was taken up earlier by a coordinate Bench, Yes Bank submitted that following the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the Puttaswamy case (26 September 2018), it no longer insisted on Aadhaar for account opening. This was recorded in the High Court’s order dated 29 November 2018, which also granted Rule on the prayer for damages and allowed the Bank to file a reply.
Following this, the bank account was eventually opened in January 2019.
Analysis by the Court
The Court noted that despite having ample opportunity, the Bank did not file any reply on the prayer for damages. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the company could not rent out its Mumbai premises from January 2018 to January 2019, resulting in loss of income. A claim of ₹10 lakh was made as compensation.
The Court observed that while the Supreme Court’s interim orders in April 2018 allowed banks to ask for proof of application for Aadhaar, the final judgment had removed the requirement altogether. Thus, from 26 September 2018 onwards, the bank had no legal ground to delay the opening of the account.
The Bench held that the claimed ₹10 lakh compensation was “exaggerated and cannot be granted.” However, it found that for the three to four months following the Supreme Court’s judgment, there was no justification for the delay.
“In a matter of this nature, we would have ordinarily relegated the petitioner to the alternate remedy. But the Rule was issued on the prayer for compensation in 2018,” the Court said, taking into account the petitioner company’s financial condition and personal circumstances of the surviving director and her daughter.
Final Directions
The Court concluded:
“We direct the Respondent-Bank to pay the Petitioner compensation of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the Petitioner provides a copy of this order to the Respondent-Bank.”
The petition was disposed of with the above directions, with no order as to costs.
