The Supreme Court of India has overturned the Gauhati High Court's directive mandating round-the-clock deployment of security guards at all ATMs. This decision came after banks, including the State Bank of India (SBI), Punjab National Bank (PNB), and Bank of India, challenged the feasibility of the order.

The High Court had originally issued this directive in December 2013 as part of a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) following an incident where a customer lost ₹35,000 from his account shortly after withdrawing ₹5,000 from an ATM. The court had ordered strict security measures, including continuous surveillance and restricting ATM access to one customer at a time.

Read Also:- Can a Commercial Suit Be Dismissed Under O VII R 11 CPC for Skipping Pre-Institution Mediation? Supreme Court to Decide

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the banks, argued before a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that the directive was not practical.

"In Assam alone, there are over 4,000 ATMs. Deploying a security guard at each ATM is not feasible. Instead, globally accepted security measures like CCTV surveillance are in place," Mehta submitted before the court.

He further pointed out that even the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Ministry of Finance had backed the banks' stance, confirming that enforcing such a directive would be nearly impossible.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Declares Jharkhand's 2010 Recruitment Process Illegal And Nullifies Entire Process

The Supreme Court had initially stayed the High Court’s order in December 2016. On February 11, 2025, the court ruled in favor of the banks, making the interim stay permanent and officially setting aside the requirement to deploy guards at every ATM.

The High Court had issued a series of security-related guidelines based on a security protocol suggested by the Assam Director General of Police (DGP). These included:

Mandatory security guards at all ATMs to ensure proper queue management and allow only one customer inside at a time.

Read Also:- Supreme Court: FIR Contents Inadmissible If Informant Dies a Natural Death, Cannot Be Proved by Investigating Officer

Functioning CCTV cameras 24x7, along with alarm systems to alert authorities if cameras become non-functional.

Restrictions on head coverings like helmets, mufflers, or caps inside ATM chambers to prevent identity concealment.

Background verification of temporary workers, including canteen staff and other bank employees, to enhance security.

While the Supreme Court nullified the first directive regarding mandatory security guards, the other measures, such as CCTV surveillance and background verification of staff, were left intact.

Case Detaild: STATE BANK OF INDIA and others Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA and others | SLP(C) No. 35933-35934/2016