In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court has upheld an individual's right to access their savings, permitting the premature withdrawal of fixed deposits for urgent family needs, specifically for a marriage. The case, Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India & Ors., involved a woman who was denied the ability to prematurely close her five-year fixed deposits to cover marriage expenses. The High Court's decision overrides objections from government authorities citing restrictive rules within the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme.

Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad delivered the judgment, emphasizing that individuals should not be denied access to their own funds for legitimate needs due to restrictive interpretations of savings schemes. The court quashed the government's rejection letter and issued a writ of mandamus, directing authorities to release the deposits within two weeks. The court further warned that any delay in compliance would result in officials being personally liable for interest at a rate of 1% per month.

The case centered around Rule 8(d) of the National Savings Time Deposit Scheme, 2019, as amended in November 2023. Priyadarsini Das had invested in five fixed deposits under this scheme, each with a five-year tenure. When faced with immediate financial needs for a family wedding, she sought to withdraw the funds prematurely, a request that was initially denied.

Representing Ms. Das, lawyer Parsuram Panda argued that the scheme did not explicitly prohibit premature withdrawal but instead provided for a reduced interest rate if deposits were withdrawn after four years but before the full term. He stressed that the funds represented her life savings and that marriage is a traditionally recognized necessity under Hindu law, justifying the urgent need for the funds.

The Union government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India P.K. Parhi, argued that the rule was unambiguous and barred any withdrawal before four years, leaving no recourse for the petitioner.

Justice Shripad, however, ruled that the scheme, as subordinate legislation, should be interpreted with leniency towards citizens. The court observed that Rule 8(d) did not contain negative language that would indicate a complete prohibition on premature withdrawal. Instead, the court emphasized that the rule primarily concerned the interest rate applicable when a deposit is withdrawn after four years but before maturity.

Furthermore, the court drew upon principles of Hindu law, referencing the precedent of Hanoomanpersaud Pandey vs Mussamat Babooee, to underscore marriage as a "traditional necessity". Justice Shripad stated that Ms. Das should be able to use her own money as she desired, unless the law explicitly stated otherwise. The ruling reinforces the principle that an individual's right to their property is paramount and can only be curtailed by explicit statutory provisions, not by narrow interpretations of procedural rules.

This judgment has significant implications for the banking sector and legal professionals, clarifying the interpretation of banking scheme rules and the role of personal law principles in financial disputes. It serves as a precedent that subordinate legislation cannot create an absolute bar to individuals accessing their own funds for judicially recognized pressing needs.