The Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026 is yet another piece of legislation the NDA-II govt has pushed through, amidst pandemonium in the Lok Sabha, without debate or the scrutiny of a Parliamentary Committee. Such legislations, passed amidst chaos in Parliament, or as a Money Bill or Ordinance – all done to bypass an informed debate and avoid public consultation – have serious implications for the citizens, while making a mockery of Parliamentary democracy.
The Bill replaces a 135-year-old law – the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 – governing the production of banking records in courts. The Act, which previously required judicial authorisation to demand citizens’ financial histories, now allows police officers to do so under the new Bill. The Bill requires branch managers to certify facts about cloud servers and cybersecurity systems they have no access to. This leaves bank customers with virtually no protection against wrongful or politically motivated disclosure of their most intimate financial data.
As the MoneyLife article argues, “A statement of account is not merely a record of debits and credits. It is a map of a person’s life. It reveals medical expenses and which hospitals or pharmacies were used. It shows political donations and union subscriptions. It discloses religious contributions, travel patterns, family relationships, subscription services, consumption habits and financial vulnerabilities. It can identify a journalist’s sources, a whistle-blower’s contacts, a trade unionist’s associations, or an activist’s support networks.”
While the state is turning more and more opaque to its citizens – by watering down the RTI law, by not appointing Information Commissioners, and by systematically eroding mechanisms of public accountability – it forces citizens to be fully transparent, snatches away the guardrails protecting their rights, and steadily expands its powers of surveillance and control. A government steadfast in its commitment to transparency and accountability would not need to hide behind chaos and pandemonium to pass legislation. When laws are enacted in such a manner, there are legitimate reasons to question both the process and the intent behind them.
