Gross NPAs of state-run banks down to 2.58% in March 2025
Gross NPA ratio of public sector banks (PSBs) dropped from 9.11% on March 31, 2021 to 2.58% on March 31, 2025, he told the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday.
Gross non-performing asset ratio is the proportion of PSB's gross NPAs to their total advances in a particular year.
According to the minister, the decline has been consistent over the last four years. On March 31, 2022, the GNPA ratio fell to 7.28% at ₹5.41 lakh crore. It dropped further to 4.97% at ₹4.28 lakh crore on March 31, 2023, and 3.47% to ₹3.39 lakh crore on March 31, 2024.
'Comprehensive measures have been taken by the Government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to recover and reduce NPAs,' Chaudhary said in a written response. These measures include a change in credit culture with the IBC, which fundamentally altered the creditor-borrower relationship by taking control of the defaulting company away from promoters and debarring wilful defaulters from the resolution process, he said.
A finance ministry official said that early detection of potential defaults has also helped in lowering fresh accretion of NPAs by BSBs to below 1% of their standard advances compared to 8.35% in March 2018, the period that saw a surge in NPAs post an asset quality review that brought out bad loans hidden in their books.
After the bank cleanup exercise was undertaken in 2015, gross NPAs of PSBs fell sharply from a peak of ₹8.96 lakh crore on March 31, 2018, he said on condition of anonymity.
The government's decision to stop evergreening of bad loans led to an asset quality review exercise in April 2025, triggering a spike in NPAs of PSBs from ₹2.17 lakh crore on March 31, 2014, to ₹8.96 lakh crore in March 2018.
With the combined efforts of the government and the RBI, the gross NPAs of scheduled commercial banks, including PSBs, fell to ₹4.55 lakh crore in December 2024, from ₹10.36 lakh crore as of March 31, 2018, the official said, quoting government data.
Enactment of stringent laws such as IBC in 2016 helped in this, he said.
So far, IBC has rescued 3,171 distressed companies involving 1,119 cases, recovering about ₹3.6 lakh crore as on December 31, 2024 (over eight years) as compared to the erstwhile Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) regime that resolved less than 3,500 cases in about three decades since its inception in 1987.
Chaudhary said the government's efforts to implement the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act have also helped in the faster recovery of bad loans. 'Pecuniary jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRTs) was increased from ₹10 lakhs to ₹20 lakhs to enable the DRTs to focus on high value cases resulting in higher recovery for the banks and financial institutions,' he said.
PSBs have set up specialised stressed assets management verticals and branches for effective monitoring and focused follow-up of NPA accounts, which facilitates quicker and improved resolution and recoveries, he said.
'Deployment of Business Correspondents and adoption of feet-on-street model have also boosted the recovery trajectory of NPAs in banks,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Paying only minimum due on your credit card? You could be in a debt trap
A credit card debt trap occurs when you are paying only the minimum due, or Using one card to pay off another. To avoid this, spend no more than 30 per cent of the card limit each month Himali Patel Mumbai Listen to This Article Credit card delinquencies in the 91–360 days overdue category rose 44.3 per cent year-on-year, from Rs 23,475.6 crore in March 2024 to Rs 33,886.5 crore in March 2025, according to a report by CRIF High Mark. These figures underline the need for customers to be more cautious in their use of credit cards. Reasons for rising NPAs A major reason for rising credit card NPAs is the minimum payment mindset. 'According to a report by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), only 40 per cent of Indian credit card holders repay their full outstanding amount every month. This encourages prolonged debt cycles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
ICICI Bank to charge payment aggregators for UPI transactions from August 1
ICICI Bank, India's second-largest private sector lender, will begin levying charges on payment aggregators (PAs) for Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions routed through their platforms, effective August 1. The move marks a shift in UPI monetisation efforts by banks amid growing transaction volumes and mounting infrastructure costs. The bank has communicated this to payment aggregators via formal letters, sources confirmed. Fee structure linked to escrow relationship According to a source familiar with the development, ICICI Bank will charge 2 basis points (bps) per transaction—capped at Rs 6—to PAs maintaining escrow accounts with the bank. For those without such an arrangement, the charge will be higher at 4 bps per transaction, capped at Rs 10. However, UPI transactions settled directly into an ICICI Bank account held by a merchant will not attract any fees. This exemption allows the bank to benefit from holding the transaction float. Peer banks already charging; margins in spotlight The move is being seen as part of a broader effort by banks to recover investments in UPI infrastructure. 'Banks may have taken a cue from the RBI governor's recent remarks on UPI monetisation,' said an executive at a leading payments firm. With merchant discount rates (MDR) at zero for UPI transactions, banks currently earn little despite bearing the cost of operating the UPI switch and managing backend infrastructure. PAs may pass on costs to merchants Industry experts suggest that payment aggregators—who typically charge merchants a platform or convenience fee—might either absorb the added cost or pass it on to merchants, depending on existing commercial arrangements. 'PAs will either pass on the costs to their merchants to maintain margins or absorb them based on the kind of arrangement they have with merchants,' said a payments executive. He also pointed out that UPI credit card transactions are already being monetised in some form. How UPI settlement works When a UPI transaction is made on a merchant's platform, the PA facilitates the flow between the customer's bank (debit) and the merchant's bank (credit). Typically, funds first land in an escrow account maintained by the PA with its bank of choice, before being settled to the merchant's bank account. Banks are now seeking to monetise this intermediary role played by PAs, especially as peer-to-merchant (P2M) transactions soar, creating high-volume, low-margin stress on digital infrastructure. ICICI Bank's move marks a step toward reshaping the economics of India's fast-growing UPI ecosystem, with implications for payment aggregators, merchants, and the broader digital payments value chain.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
SC to hear JSW-Bhushan Steel case afresh, recalls May 2 judgment for liquidation
A Special Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Thursday recalled a May 2 verdict of the court which rejected a resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL). The apex court judgment had further ordered the liquidation of BPSL to commence. However, on Thursday, the Bench decided to hear the case afresh. It was of the prime facie view that the judgment in May, authored by Justice Bela Trivedi (now retired), had not clearly appreciated the legal position in the case. 'Prima facie, we are of the view that the judgment did not correctly consider the legal position laid down in a catena of judgments,' the Bench noted. It said various factual aspects had to be taken into consideration in the case. 'This is a fit case wherein judgment under review need to be recalled and the matter is to be considered afresh,' the court concluded. It listed the review petitions for detailed hearing on August 7. On May 26, the apex court had ordered status quo in the liquidation proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. The court had passed the order of status quo on liquidation to give JSW time to file a review petition. The court had, at the time, said status quo ought to prevail for BPSL in the interest of justice and to avoid future complications. JSW had argued that the case was complicated, and must not be rushed into liquidation. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for JSW, had informed the court that BPSL had an annual turnover of ₹28,000 crore in one year. Its production had increased from 2.5 metric tonnes to 4.5 metric tonnes. The firm employed 25,000 people. On May 2, the Supreme Court had found JSW's Resolution Plan for BPSL in 'flagrant violation and contravention' of the law. 'The Resolution Professional had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations during the course of entire CIR proceedings of the corporate debtor, BPSL,' the Supreme Court had concluded. The court had invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against the BPSL under the IBC. The court had faulted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for accepting the Resolution Plan. 'The CoC had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan of the JSW… The CoC had failed to protect the interest of the creditors by taking contradictory stands before this court, and accepting the payments from JSW without any demurrer, and supporting JSW to implement its ill-motivated plan against the interest of the creditors,' the May 2 verdict had observed. The CoC, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, too submitted his reservations about the May 2 judgment.
