A surviving joint account holder is entitled to operate the account despite an “all account holders and survivor” mandate.

The petitioner and her late husband, Ashok Kumar Roy, jointly maintained Account No. 32757675329 with the State Bank of India under the operating mandate “either or survivor”.

During his lifetime, the petitioner’s husband allegedly submitted an application dated 22 January 2015 requesting that the mandate be changed to “all account holders and survivor” and that ₹25 lakh in the account be placed on hold.

After his death on 14 August 2020, the bank declined to release the amount to the petitioner and advised her to obtain a succession certificate, relying on its guidelines.

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of the amount lying in the account.

1. Whether the petitioner, as the surviving joint account holder, was entitled to operate the account and withdraw the amount lying therein despite the alleged change in mandate from “either or survivor” to “all account holders and survivor”.

2. Whether the bank was justified in requiring the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate before releasing the amount.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the legal effect of the joint-account operating mandate and the bank’s guidelines contained in Annexure R/2, particularly Clause 20.2.

The Court held that, even assuming the mandate had been changed to “all account holders and survivor,” a surviving joint account holder remained entitled to operate the account after the death of the other account holder.

The Court further observed that Clause 20.2 of the guidelines did not specifically address an “all account holders and survivor” mandate and therefore could not justify withholding the amount from the surviving account holder.

The Court accepted, for the sake of argument, the bank’s assertion that the mandate had been changed pursuant to the husband’s application dated 22 January 2015.

It nevertheless found that the petitioner was herself an account holder and had survived her husband. Consequently, the alleged change in mandate did not extinguish her right to operate the account or handle the balance.

The bank’s reliance on its guidelines was misplaced because Clause 20.2 did not govern or prohibit operation of an account under the specific “all account holders and survivor” mandate.

The bank therefore could not insist upon a succession certificate or deny withdrawal of the outstanding amount.

The respondents were directed to release the amount in favour of the petitioner, if demanded, within 30 days from the date of such demand.