Bank of Baroda Writes Off ₹35,715 Crore of Loans above ₹100 Crore, Refuses To Disclose Big Defaulters’ Names under RTI
State-run Bank of Baroda (BoB) has written off loans worth ₹35,715 crore belonging to borrowers with outstanding loans of ₹100 crore and above over the six financial years from FY20-21 to FY25-26, while cumulative recovery of less than 28% from these accounts is at ₹9,946 crore. However, BoB, yet again, refused to disclose the names of the large borrowers whose loans were technically written off or whose accounts were settled after haircuts, citing exemptions under the RTI Act.
 
The figures, disclosed by the Bank in response to an RTI application filed by Pune-based activist Vivek Velankar, also show that BoB reported ₹7,817 crore as the amount written off as a haircut while settling loans of borrowers with dues above ₹100 crore from FY20-21 to FY25-26.
 
₹35,715 Crore Written Off
BoB's RTI reply, dated 30 July 2026, was issued in response to Mr Velankar's application dated 21 June 2026. The Bank provided year-wise figures for write-offs involving loan accounts of ₹100 crore and above.
 
BoB reported the following technical write-offs:
 
 
The largest write-offs were recorded in FY20-21 and FY21-22, when ₹11,916 crore and ₹11,261 crore, respectively, were technically written off.
 
The Bank's reply specifically describes the figures as 'technical write-off', meaning the amounts have been written off from the Bank's books for accounting purposes. A technical write-off does not by itself mean that the Bank has stopped pursuing recovery.
 
Only ₹9,946 Crore Recovered
Despite the ₹35,715 crore in technical write-offs involving accounts above ₹100 crore, BoB disclosed cumulative recovery of ₹9,946 crore from such accounts.
 
The year-wise recovery figures supplied by the Bank are:
 
 
The cumulative recovery is equivalent to about 28% of the ₹35,715 crore technically written off over the period covered by the figures.
 
Mr Velankar said the numbers were particularly concerning because the loans involved borrowers with dues of more than ₹100 crore.
 
"The reply I received has been deeply shocking," he said, pointing out that Bank of Baroda had written off ₹35,715 crore in loans involving large borrowers while recovering only ₹9,946 crore.
 
₹7,817 Crore Haircut in Settlements
The RTI application also sought details of large loan accounts settled through the national company law tribunal (NCLT) or other forums after accepting a haircut, including the loan amount and the haircut agreed to settle the loans.
 
In response, BoB declined to provide borrower-wise information, but disclosed an aggregate figure for the period from FY20-21 to FY25-26.
 
According to the reply, the amount of haircut — described by the bank as the write-off amount taken by the bank to settle loans — involving technically written-off accounts above ₹100 crore is:
 
 
The highest amount was recorded in FY21-22 at ₹3,132 crore, followed by ₹2,331 crore in FY20-21 and ₹1,831 crore in FY22-23.
 
Mr Velankar said this meant Bank of Baroda had effectively forgone thousands of crores while settling large loan accounts.
 
"It must be noted that these cases were filed before the NCLT precisely to recover money from wilful defaulters. The bank ultimately had to waive thousands of crores in the process — and yet it continues to shield the identities of these very defaulters," he said.
 
Bank Refuses To Disclose Names
The most contentious aspect of the RTI reply is the BoB's refusal to provide the names of the borrowers.
 
Mr Velankar had specifically sought the names of loan takers whose loans above ₹100 crore were technically written off during the relevant financial years, along with the amount written off.
 
BoBaroda rejected the request, saying the information was personal in nature and related to third-party information and that disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
 
For the request concerning borrowers whose loans were settled through NCLT or similar forums by accepting haircuts, the bank again refused borrower-wise details, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
 
Thus, while the Bank disclosed the aggregate figures, it did not provide the names of the borrowers or account-wise details that would identify the cases behind the ₹35,715 crore technical write-offs and ₹7,817 crore haircut figure.
 
Data Begins from FY20-21 despite Wider RTI Query
The RTI application sought information covering a longer period. However, the Bank's disclosed year-wise figures for technical write-offs, recoveries and haircuts begin from FY20-21.
 
For the technical write-off and recovery queries, BoB said the information sought is not readily available in the requested form and that compiling and collating it would disproportionately divert resources under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
 
It, nevertheless, provided the aggregate and year-wise figures available for accounts of ₹100 crore and above from FY20-21 onwards.
 
Similarly, for the haircut-related query, the Bank provided figures from FY20-21 to FY25-26 rather than borrower-wise information for the entire period sought.
 
Questions over Accountability
Mr Velankar has questioned why large borrowers whose accounts result in substantial losses for banks should remain unidentified while small borrowers often face public recovery action.
 
"Banks that are quick to publicly shame small borrowers — publishing their names and addresses in newspapers and auctioning their homes and properties to recover relatively modest sums — adopt a soft, accommodating stance when it comes to large borrowers," he said.
 
He also questioned the absence of accountability for those responsible for sanctioning and managing the large loans.
 
"What makes this even more troubling is that the board of directors responsible for sanctioning these large loans so recklessly in the first place, for failing to recover them after write-off, and for settling cases by foregoing thousands of crores through haircuts, faces absolutely no accountability or action whatsoever," Mr Velankar, who is also president of Sajag Nagrik Manch, said.
 
The RTI response, however, does not provide information establishing whether any particular loan was sanctioned recklessly, whether a borrower was a wilful defaulter, or whether any bank official or director faced disciplinary or legal action. Those aspects, therefore, cannot be inferred from the figures disclosed in the reply.
 
The figures nevertheless highlight the scale of loan losses involving large borrower accounts at BoB. Against ₹35,715 crore in technical write-offs reported for accounts above ₹100 crore between FY20-21 and FY25-26, the Bank disclosed recovery of ₹9,946 crore, while separately reporting ₹7,817 crore in write-offs/haircuts associated with settlement of such accounts.
 
You may also want to read...
 
 
 
Comments
artisgr8
2 weeks ago
Before some years GOI has write off 75000 crores of Farmer loans and I filed and RTI to know who all are but some banks says our records are wiped off in heavy rains, some has not replied, one bank has provided data in I have seen a 25 JUST TWENTY FIVE rs. were write off... so whose names are written off is a BIG question.
muscat2011.job
3 weeks ago
These are the things that Banker's Bank RBI should take up and also tell the public as to what they did.
akbardesh96
3 weeks ago
Friends. Not difficult to guess.
alok317696
3 weeks ago
Clearly the bank and the NCLT (govt agency) are Hands in glove. I feel a PIL in court can only handle this disparity of dealing differently, a common man & a 100 + crore borrower as far as (Bank of Baroda rejected the request, saying the information was personal in nature and related to third-party information and that disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005) invasion of privacy is con erned.
alok317696
3 weeks ago
Clearly the bank and the NCLT (govt agency) are Hands in glove. I feel a PIL in court can only handle this disparity of dealing differently, a common man & a 100 + crore borrower as far as (Bank of Baroda rejected the request, saying the information was personal in nature and related to third-party information and that disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005) invasion of privacy is con erned.
skgupta2000
3 weeks ago
Its a PSU... can not withheld the name of DEFAULTERS... its tax payers money which they are DOLING OUT. Why RBI & Finance minstry is silent. They are answerable to PUBLIC.

I am willing to take loan of Rs 1000 crore on same terms and conditions.
yerramr
3 weeks ago
Why's BOB afraid of disclosing defaulters names. I fully agree with TVG.
gopalakrishnan.tv
3 weeks ago
This sort of write offs using other stake holders funds in the bank who include depositors , good borrowers, employees, share holders and government has no justification what so ever. The situations led to write offs and the details of borrowers whose accounts have been written off technically in banks books should be made transparent as depositors' and employees' sacrifice definitely be much more than their affordability . Depositors are paid less than 7% for their Fds and less than 3.5 %for their SBs and thus the money saved by banks are passed on to big borrowers and eventually written offs as disclosed now. With this background being a reality , banks and borrowers have no moral right to get subsidised for their inefficiencies and business losses to make it good from the poor stake holders of banks. The depositors even have to pay Income tax on this meagre savings without even adjusting for inflation which is always more than the int rate. This is something very pathetic. It is time to fully justify and make it transparent as to what has happened to these borrowers and how and why the accounts became bad and why the banks and borrowers think of some inbuilt mechanism to make up for such bad debts losses without hurting the innocent stake holders.
UPI Could See MDR Return for Select Transactions as Govt Seeks To Reduce Exchequer Burden
Moneylife Digital Team 13 August 2026
The Indian government is examining the possibility of restoring the merchant discount rate (MDR) on certain high-value unified payments interface (UPI) transactions or introducing a tiered incentive structure to gradually reduce its...
RBI Imposes ₹50,000 Penalty on Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank from Maharashtra
Moneylife Digital Team 11 August 2026
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on Maharashtra-based Amravati District Central Cooperative (DCC) Bank Ltd for non-compliance with certain directions on know-your-customer (KYC) norms, reasonableness of bank...
UPI Will Remain Free for Consumers, FM Sitharaman Clarifies as Parliament Passes Tax Bill
Moneylife Digital Team 11 August 2026
The Parliament on Monday cleared the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, with Union minister of finance Nirmala Sitharaman assuring the Rajya Sabha that the legislation does not impose any tax or transaction charge on...
Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026: Police Can Access Your Bank Records without a Court Order — and That Is Just the Beginning of the Problem
Moneylife Digital Team 05 August 2026
Updated on 7 August 2026 at 2.40pm   Editor’s Note: What This Revision Changes and Why   For the original article, we relied on the evaluation by bank union leader Devidas Tuljapurkar, who is also the chairman of the Banking...
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback