In a landmark judgment on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not necessary for banks to deploy security guards at ATMs 24/7 to manage queues and ensure that only one customer enters the facility at a time. This decision overturns a previous directive from the Gauhati High Court issued in December 2013, which mandated continuous security presence at all ATM locations to prevent fraud and maintain order.
The bench, comprising Justices Bhushan R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran, sided with the arguments put forth by the Union government and several major banks, including the State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, and Bank of India. These institutions had challenged the high court’s order on the grounds of impracticality, particularly highlighting the logistical challenges due to the vast number of ATMs across the country.
The Supreme Court had initially stayed the high court’s directive in December 2016, and with this ruling, the stay has been made permanent. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government and the banks, argued that the requirement for 24-hour security was neither feasible nor necessary. He noted that in Assam alone, there are approximately 4,000 ATMs, making the high court’s order logistically untenable.
Mehta emphasized that a more globally accepted approach to ATM security involves the use of CCTV surveillance rather than physical guards. The bench noted that while the high court had modified its directive to require guards only during operational hours, the measure was still problematic given the 24/7 accessibility of ATMs.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court was informed that both the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance supported the view that round-the-clock security guards at ATMs were unnecessary, though they agreed that banks should comply with other high court-ordered security measures, such as CCTV monitoring and alarm systems.
The judgment came in response to a suo motu public interest litigation initiated by the Gauhati High Court following a local newspaper report about a customer who lost ₹35,000 from his account shortly after a withdrawal. This prompted the court to impose several security measures, including continuous CCTV monitoring and restrictions on wearing helmets, mufflers, or caps inside ATM chambers.
