Background
The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) continues its proactive approach to regulate the digital lending landscape, as evidenced by its recent issuance of draft guidelines on ‘Digital Lending- Transparency in Aggregation of Loan Products from Multiple Lenders.’ This circular, notified by RBI via a press release dated 26.04.2024[i], builds upon the framework established in the ‘Guidelines on Digital Lending’ issued on 02.09.2022 and the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated 08.12.2023.
Applicability of the Draft Circular
The draft circular is designed to address the aggregation of loan products by lending service providers (‘LSP’), particularly focusing on ensuring transparency and consumer-centricity in the digital lending process.
Key Highlights of the Draft Guidelines[ii]
Enhanced Transparency: The guidelines emphasize the importance of providing borrowers with clear and comprehensive information about potential lenders. LSPs are required to offer a digital view of all available loan offers from willing lenders, enabling borrowers to make informed decisions.
Consistent Approach: LSPs are instructed to adopt a consistent approach in ascertaining the willingness of lenders to offer a loan. This approach must be transparently disclosed on their respective websites.
Comprehensive Information via Digital View: The digital view presented to borrowers should include essential details such as the names of the regulating entities (‘RE’) or the lenders, loan amounts, tenor of the loan, Annual Percentage Rates (‘APR’) and other key terms and conditions. Additionally, links to the Key Facts Statement (‘KFS’) for each lending entity should be provided for further clarity.
Unbiased Presentation: LSPs are prohibited from promoting or favouring specific RE or loan products through biased or deceptive practices. The content displayed must be unbiased and free from any deceptive patterns designed to mislead borrowers.
Conclusion
The issuance of these draft guidelines underscores RBI’s commitment to fostering transparency and accountability in the digital lending ecosystem. By empowering borrowers with access to comprehensive information, these guidelines aim to promote fair lending practices and protect the interests of consumers. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the draft guidelines carefully and provide feedback to RBI before the effective date, which will be announced shortly.
End Notes
[i] Press Release No. 2024-2025/194, dated 26.4.2024.
[ii] RBI Circular DOR.STR.REC.*/21.07.001/2024-25, para 3
Attaching the press release and draft guidelines for ready reference:
2024 - Draft Guidelines on Digital Lending.PDF
Authored by Muskaan Jain, Associate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.