SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Neshiha Dharshini A – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chidambara Nagar, Thoothukkudi Branch – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)No.5457 & 5458 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Sivakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Deepak Standing Counsel

CIBIL score of co-applicant cannot justify rejection of educational loan; banks must reconsider with eligible co-applicant.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing reconsideration of an educational loan application per Indian Bank's Association Model Education Loan Scheme 2022 and respondent bank's Educational Loan - IOB Vidya Shrestha. The application was rejected due to the co-applicant's CIBIL score of 686 and existing loans. Coordinate Benches held that CIBIL reports of family members cannot justify rejection of educational loans, and banks must facilitate access to higher education for students from poor backgrounds. The court framed the issue as whether rejection based on co-applicant's CIBIL score and existing loans is arbitrary. Prior judgments established that such rejections are discriminatory, emphasizing banks' social responsibility. The reasoning highlighted that non-consideration for cited reasons violates these precedents. The court directed the bank to reconsider the loan application, requiring a new co-applicant with CIBIL score above 750, and complete disbursement within four weeks if eligible. The writ petition was disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks reconsideration of rejected educational loan. (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the loan application for sanction of an educational loan in favour of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner and his father had applied for sanction of an educational loan in favour of the petitioner, who is pursuing the fourth year of the MBBS course. The application was not considered on the ground that the CIBIL score of the co-applicant, namely, the petitioner’s father, was 686 and that he had availed two gold loans and one housing loan amounting to a total of Rs.1,49,000/-. It was also stated that the co-applicant had an active banking account with Tamilnad Mercantile Bank and that all transactions were being routed through that bank.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 5296 of

2018, by order dated 10.04.2018, held that the CIBIL reports of the petitioner’s family members cannot be a ground for rejection of an educational loan application and that the bank may not be justified in seeking an explanation for any delayed admission. Similarly, another Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 16836 of 2018, by order dated 27.08.2018, observed that the grant of educational loans to aspiring students cannot be made to depend perilously on the whimsical approach of branches of nationalised banks and that banks must assume a larger social responsibility in facilitating access to higher education, particularly for students from poor socio-economic backgrounds.

5. Therefore, the non-consideration of the petitioner’s application for an educational loan for reasons cited above is arbitrary and discriminatory.

6. In light of the above, the first respondent Bank is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s loan application (ID No. A20251025000104961 dated 25.10.2025) and extend the educational loan, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria. The petitioner shall provide a co-applicant whose CIBIL score is more than 750. Upon furnishing the co-applicant details, the respondent Bank shall disburse the educational loan in favour of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top