Recently, Delhi witnessed large scale protests by various groups demanding stricter punishment and speedier trial in cases of sexual assault against women.  In light of the protests, the central government has constituted a Commission (headed by Justice Verma) to suggest possible amendments in the criminal law to ensure speedier disposal of cases relating to sexual assault.  Though the Supreme Court, in 1986, had recognised speedy trial to be a fundamental right, India continues to have a high number of pending cases. In 2012, the net pendency in High Courts and subordinate courts decreased by over 6 lakh cases. However, there is still a substantial backlog of cases across various courts in the country.  As per the latest information given by the Ministry of Law and Justice, there are 43.2 lakh cases pending in the High Courts and 2.69 crore cases pending in the district courts.[1]

After the recent gang-rape of a 23 year old girl, the Delhi High Court directed the state government to establish five Fast Track Courts (FTCs) for the expeditious adjudication of cases relating to sexual assault.   According to a news report, other states such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have also begun the process of establishing FTCs for rape cases.  In this blog, we look at the status of pending cases in various courts in the country, the number of vacancies of judges and the status of FTCs in the country. Vacancies in the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts One of the reasons for the long delay in the disposal of cases is the high number of vacancies in position for judges in the High Courts and the District Courts of the country.  As of December 1, 2012, the working strength of the High Court judges was 613 as against the sanctioned strength of 895 judges.  This reflects a 32% vacancy of judges across various High Courts in the country.  The highest number of vacancies is in the Allahabad High Court with a working strength of 86 judges against the sanctioned strength of 160 judges (i.e. vacancy of 74 judges).   The situation is not much better at the subordinate level.  As on September 30, 2011, the sanctioned strength of judges at the subordinate level was 18,123 judges as against a working strength of 14,287 judges (i.e. 21% vacancy).  The highest vacancy is in Gujarat with 794 vacancies of judges, followed by Bihar with 690 vacancies. Fast Track Courts The 11th Finance Commission had recommended a scheme for the establishment of 1734 FTCs for the expeditious disposal of cases pending in the lower courts.  In this regard, the Commission had allocated Rs 500 crore.   FTCs were to be established by the state governments in consultation with the respective High Courts.  An average of five FTCs were to be established in each district of the country.  The judges for these FTCs were appointed on an adhoc basis.  The judges were selected by the High Courts of the respective states.  There are primarily three sources of recruitment.  First, by promoting members from amongst the eligible judicial officers; second, by appointing retired High Court judges and third, from amongst members of the Bar of the respective state. FTCs were initially established for a period of five years (2000-2005).  However, in 2005, the Supreme Court[2] directed the central government to continue with the FTC scheme, which was extended until 2010-2011.  The government discontinued the FTC scheme in March 2011.  Though the central government stopped giving financial assistance to the states for establishing FTCs, the state governments could establish FTCs from their own funds.  The decision of the central government not to finance the FTCs beyond 2011 was challenged in the Supreme Court.  In 2012, the Court upheld the decision of the central government.[3]  It held that the state governments have the liberty to decide whether they want to continue with the scheme or not.  However, if they decide to continue then the FTCs have to be made a permanent feature. As of September 3, 2012, some states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala decided to continue with the FTC scheme.  However, some states such as Haryana and Chhattisgarh decided to discontinue it. Other states such as Delhi and Karnataka have decided to continue the FTC scheme only till 2013.[4]

Table 1: Number of Fast Track Courts and the pending cases in FTCs                     (As on March 31, 2011)

State No of FTC No of cases transferred until March 31, 2011 Pending cases
Arunachal Pradesh 3 4,162 2,502
Bihar` 179 2,39,278 80,173
Assam 20 72,191 16,380
West Bengal 109 1,46,083 32,180
Goa 5 5,096 1,079
Punjab 15 58,570 12,223
Jharkhand 38 1,10,027 22,238
Gujarat 61 5,37.636 1,03,340
Chattisgarh 25 9,4670 18,095
Meghalaya 3 1,031 188
Rajasthan 83 1,49,447 26,423
Himachal Pradesh 9 40,126 6,699
Karnataka 87 2,18,402 34,335
Andhra Pradesh 108 2,36,928 36,975
Nagaland 2 845 129
Kerala 38 1,09,160 13,793
Mizoram 3 18,68 233
Haryana 6 38,359 4,769
Madhya Pradesh 84 3,60,602 43,239
UP 153 4,64,775 53,117
Maharashtra 51 4,23,518 41,899
Tamil Nadu 49 4,11,957 40,621
Uttarakhand 20 98,797 9006
Orissa 35 66,199 5,758
Manipur 2 3,059 198
Tripura 3 5,812 221
Total 1192 3898598 6,05,813

Sources:  Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.498, March 3, 2012; PRS


[1].  Rajya Sabha Starred Question no 231 dated December 10, 2012.

[2].  Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India (2005) 3 SCR 103.

[3].  Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502. [4].  Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question no 2388 dated September 3, 2012.

Last month, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) released the report of the Expert Committee on Urban Co-operative Banks (Chair: Mr. N. S. Vishwanathan).  In this blog, we discuss some broader issues with the functioning and regulation of urban co-operative banks (UCBs), and some of the suggestions to address these as highlighted by the committee in its report.

Need for Urban Co-operative Banks

The history of UCBs in India can be traced to the 19th century when such societies were set up drawing inspiration from the success of the co-operative movement in Britain and the co-operative credit movement in Germany.  Urban co-operative credit societies, were organised on a community basis to meet the consumption-oriented credit needs of their members.  UCBs are primary cooperative banks in urban and semi-urban areas.  They are co-operative societies that undertake banking business.  Co-operative banks accept deposits from the public and lend to their members.  Co-operative banks are different from other co-operatives as they mobilise resources for lending and investment from the wider public rather than only their members.

Concerns regarding the professionalism of urban cooperative banks gave rise to the view that they should be better regulated.  Large cooperative banks with paid-up share capital and reserves of one lakh rupees were brought under the scope of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with effect from March 1, 1966.  Prior to this, such banks were regulated under the scope of state-specific cooperative laws.  The revised framework brought them under the ambit of supervision of the RBI.  Till 1996, these banks could lend money only for non-agricultural purposes.  However, this distinction does not apply today.  

The Expert Committee noted that UCBs play a key role in financial inclusion.  It further observed that the focus area for UCBs has traditionally been communities and localities including workplace groups.  They play an important role in the delivery of last-mile credit, even more so for those sections of the population who are not integrated into the mainstream banking framework.  UCBs primarily lend to wage earners, small entrepreneurs, and businesses in urban and semi-urban areas.  UCBs can be more responsive than formal banking channels to the needs of the local people.

Over the years, concerns have been raised about non-professional management in UCBs and that this can lead to weaker governance and risk management in these entities.  RBI has also taken regulatory action on several UCBs.  For instance, in September 2019, RBI placed Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank under restrictions on allegations of serious underreporting of non-performing assets.  The bank could not grant loans, make investments or accept deposits without prior approval from RBI.  While these restrictions were originally put in place for six months, the time frame was extended several times and has now been extended till December 31, 2021.  In addition, low capital base, poor credit management and diversion of funds have also been issues in the sector.

Shrinking share in the banking sector

There were 1,539 UCBs in the country as of March 31, 2020, with deposits worth Rs 5,01,180 crore and advances worth Rs 3,05,370 crore.   Even though 94% of the entities in the banking sector were UCBs their market share in the banking sector has been low and declining and stands at around 3%.  UCBs accounted for 3.24% of the deposits and 2.69% of the advances in the banking sector.  The Committee noted that state-of-the-art technology adopted by new players, such as small finance banks and fintech entities, along with commercial banks can disrupt the niche customer segment of the UCBs.

Figure 1:  Growth in deposits of UCBs (in Rs crore)

Source: Report of the Expert Committee on Urban Co-operative Banks; PRS.

Figure 2:     Growth in advances of UCBs (in Rs crore)

Source:  Report of the Expert Committee on Urban Co-operative Banks; PRS.

Burden of non-performing assets

UCBs had the highest net non-performing asset (NNPA) ratio (5.26%) and gross non-performing asset (GNPA) ratio (10.96%) across the banking sector as of March 2020.  These levels correspond to around twice that of private sector banks, and around five times that of small finance banks.  The Committee noted that, as of March 2020, UCBs have the lowest level of net interest margin (difference between interest earned and interest spent relative to total interest generating assets held by the bank) and negative return on assets and return on equity. 

Figure 3: Asset quality across banks (in percentage)

Sources:   Report of the Expert Committee on Urban Co-operative Banks; PRS.

Supervisory Action Framework (SAF):  SAF envisages corrective action by UCB and/or supervisory action by RBI on breach of financial thresholds related to asset quality, profitability and level of capital as measured by Capital to Risk-weighted Asset Ratio (CRAR).  The Committee recommended that SAF should consider only asset quality (based on net non-performing asset ratio) and CRAR with an emphasis on reducing the time spent by a UCB under SAF.  The RBI should begin the mandatory resolution process including reconstruction or compulsory merger as soon as a UCB reaches the third stage under SAF (CRAR less than 4.5% and/or net non-performing asset ratio above 12%).

Constraints in raising capital

The Committee also observed that UCBs are constrained in raising capital which restricts their ability to expand the business.  According to co-operative principles, share capital is to be issued and refunded only at face value.  Thus, investment in UCBs is less attractive as it does not lead to an increase in its value.   Also, the principle of one member, one vote means that an interested investor cannot acquire a controlling stake in UCBs.  It was earlier recommended that UCBs should be allowed to issue fresh capital at a premium based on the net worth of the entity at the end of the preceding year.

Listing of securities:  The Committee recommended making suitable amendments to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to enable RBI to notify certain securities issued by any co-operative bank or class of co-operative banks to be covered under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.  This will enable their listing and trading on a recognised stock exchange.   Until such amendments are made, the Committee recommended that banks can be allowed to have a system on their websites to buy/sell securities at book value subject to the condition that the bank should ensure that the prospective buyer is eligible to be admitted as a member.   

Conflict between Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and co-operative laws 

The fundamental difference between banking companies and co-operative banks is in the voting rights of shareholders.  In banking companies, each share has a corresponding vote.  But in the case of co-operative banks, each shareholder has only one vote irrespective of the number of shares held.  Despite RBI being the regulator of the banking sector, the regulation of co-operative banks by RBI was restricted to functions related directly to banking.  This gave rise to dual regulation with governance, audit, and winding-up related functions regulated by state governments and central government for single-state banks and multi-state banks, respectively.  

2020 Amendments to the Banking Regulation Act: In September 2020, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was amended to increase RBI’s powers  over the regulation of co-operative banks including qualifications of management of these banks and supersession of board of directors.  The Committee noted that due to the amendment of the Act, certain conflicts have arisen with various co-operative laws.  For instance, the Act allows co-operative banks to issue shares at a premium, but it is silent on their redemption.  It noted that if any co-operative societies’ legislation provides for redemption of shares only at par, then, while a co-operative bank incorporated under that legislation can issue shares at a premium, it can redeem them only at par.   

Note that on September 3, 2021, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed a circular released by the RBI on appointment of managing director/whole-time director in UCBs.  The circular provided for eligibility and propriety criteria for the appointment of such personnel in UCBs.  The petitioner, Mahanagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, argued that the service conditions of the managing director and chief executive officer of co-operative banks are governed by bye-laws framed under the M.P. State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.  The petition noted that co-operative as a subject falls under the state list and hence the power to legislate in the field of co-operative societies falls under the domain of the states and not the central government.

Umbrella Organisation

Over the years, several committees have looked at the feasibility to set up an Umbrella Organisation (UO) for UCBs.  It is an apex body of federating UCBs.  In 2011, an expert committee on licensing of new UCBs recommended that there should be two separate UOs for the sector.  In June 2019, RBI granted an in-principle approval to National Federation of Urban Co-operative Banks and Credit Societies Ltd to set up a UO in the form of a non-deposit taking non-banking finance company.  The UO is expected to provide information technology and financial support to its federating members along with value-added services linked to treasury, foreign exchange and international remittances.   It is envisaged to provide scale through network to smaller UCBs.  The report of the current Committee recommended that the minimum capital of the UO should be Rs 300 crore.  Once stabilised, the UO can explore the possibility of becoming a universal bank.  It can also take up the role of a self-regulatory organisation for its member UCBs.  The Committee also suggested that the membership of the UO can be opened-up to both financial and non-financial co-operatives who can make contributions through share capital in the UO.

Comments on the report of the Expert Committee are invited until September 30, 2021.