Bankers’ Books Bill turns financial histories into tool of surveillance: CFA

By A Representative 

Top advocacy group, the Center for Financial Accountability (CFA), has sharply criticised the Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026, describing it as legislation that expands state surveillance powers while eroding citizens’ rights over their financial data. The Bill, which replaces the 135-year-old Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, was passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2026, by voice vote amid Opposition protests and without debate or referral to a Parliamentary Committee.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman introduced the Bill on August 3. The government has framed it as a necessary modernisation to align the law with digital banking. It expands the definition of “bankers’ books” to cover records in physical, electronic, digital, virtual, cloud-based, and backup or disaster-recovery formats. Certified copies of these records become admissible as evidence in courts, arbitration, and investigations, subject to standardised certificates confirming authenticity, integrity, authorised handling, and cybersecurity safeguards. Bank officers are generally protected from being summoned to produce originals or testify in cases where the bank is not a party, except for a defined “special cause.” The Centre can also extend the law to other financial-sector entities by notification.

CFA argued that the Bill was pushed through “amidst pandemonium” in a manner that bypassed informed debate and public consultation, making “a mockery of Parliamentary democracy.” It said such processes have serious implications for citizens. The organisation highlighted that the Act previously required judicial authorisation for demanding citizens’ financial histories, but the new framework allows police officers (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, or other notified officers) to issue equivalent orders during investigations or inquiries under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

This provision largely continues a mechanism from the 1891 Act, but critics note that the shift to easily shareable electronic and cloud records heightens privacy risks. CFA, citing a MoneyLife analysis, stressed that a bank statement is “a map of a person’s life,” revealing medical expenses, political donations, religious contributions, travel patterns, family relationships, consumption habits, and potentially journalists’ sources, whistle-blowers’ contacts, or activists’ networks. Branch managers must certify facts about cloud servers and cybersecurity systems they often lack access to or control over, leaving customers with “virtually no protection against wrongful or politically motivated disclosure.”

CFA further contrasted the state’s growing opacity—citing dilution of the Right to Information law, delays in appointing Information Commissioners, and erosion of accountability mechanisms—with the demand for full transparency from citizens. “A government steadfast in its commitment to transparency and accountability would not need to hide behind chaos and pandemonium to pass legislation,” the statement said. “When laws are enacted in such a manner, there are legitimate reasons to question both the process and the intent behind them.”

Legal experts have welcomed the digital update for streamlining commercial cases but flagged gaps in data-protection safeguards, the practicality of local branch certifications for centralised systems, and the ease of electronic data sharing compared with physical ledgers. Government and some legal voices have maintained that the police provision is not new and serves investigative needs, while certified copies reduce burdens on banks. The Bill awaits further parliamentary stages.