Bank of Baroda write-off row: ₹35,715 crore

Why Bank of Baroda is trending on write-offs

Bank of Baroda is being widely discussed after social media posts highlighted large loan write-offs in accounts of ₹100 crore and above. The headline number being shared is ₹35,715 crore written off between FY20-21 and FY25-26. The same posts and links also point to relatively low recovery from these large accounts. Another strand of the debate is about transparency and public disclosure, not only the size of bad loans. A Right to Information (RTI) request seeking borrower names was denied by the bank, and that refusal has become part of the controversy. Several commentators are also stressing that “technical write-off” is an accounting step and not the same as forgiving the borrower. That distinction is central because it changes how readers interpret the ₹35,715 crore figure. The discussion has also widened into a broader conversation about write-offs across public sector banks (PSBs).

What the ₹35,715 crore number covers

According to the circulating reports and posts, Bank of Baroda “technically wrote off” ₹35,715 crore in loans involving borrowers with outstanding dues of ₹100 crore or more. The period cited in the discussion is six financial years from FY20-21 to FY25-26. The focus on ₹100-crore-plus borrowers is driving attention because these are large exposures, not retail-level accounts. Alongside the total write-off figure, the same set of claims also lists the recovery achieved from these accounts. In addition, posts mention a separate figure for write-offs or haircuts linked to settlements through NCLT and similar mechanisms. Taken together, these three numbers are what people are using to argue about accountability and outcomes. The table below summarises only the figures mentioned in the trending context.

Recovery outcome: ₹9,946 crore and the “less than 28%” point

The most repeated comparison online is between ₹35,715 crore written off and ₹9,946 crore recovered. Posts describe this recovery as “less than 28%” for the period cited. People are interpreting the gap as a measure of how difficult large-value recoveries can be after accounts turn non-performing. Others are reading the same gap as a governance issue, especially given that the borrower-wise details are not publicly provided through the RTI route in this case. Importantly, the recovery figure being discussed is cumulative, meaning it aggregates recoveries across the cited years. The debate also reflects confusion about whether a write-off stops recovery efforts, which multiple commenters say is not true. Because recoveries can continue after a technical write-off, some readers argue that the final recovery percentage can change over time. Still, the currently cited recovery-to-write-off ratio is what is fuelling the present discussion.

Haircuts and settlements: the ₹7,817 crore figure

Another number repeatedly cited is ₹7,817 crore, described as write-offs or haircuts linked to NCLT and similar settlements. In social media framing, this figure is being treated differently from a technical write-off, because it is tied to settlement outcomes. The word “haircut” is central to how the public reads such cases, since it implies lenders accepted less than what was owed. Posts club this figure with the write-off total to argue that losses are not only accounting entries but can be crystallised through resolution. At the same time, the context shared online does not provide borrower-wise breakdowns, sectors, or collateral details for these settlements. That absence limits the ability of readers to judge why specific settlements were reached. It also encourages speculation, which is why several threads focus on whether disclosure norms are adequate. Without names or account-level data in the public domain through RTI in this instance, the ₹7,817 crore becomes another flashpoint. The discussion therefore mixes accounting concepts with the politics of disclosure.

RTI request and the bank’s response citing privacy

A key trigger in the trend is an RTI request by activist Vivek Velankar seeking names of the large borrowers. Bank of Baroda refused to provide borrower-wise details, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which relates to personal information and unwarranted invasion of privacy. Posts also mention that the bank cited “privacy and other exemptions” when denying disclosure. The refusal has been criticised online on the grounds that these are large-value defaults and involve public sector banking. Political commentary has amplified the issue, with posts referencing the same RTI exemption argument. The transparency debate is not limited to whether write-offs are legitimate, but whether the public can know who the large defaulters are. Since the bank did not disclose names under RTI in the cited context, online discussion has shifted to accountability mechanisms outside RTI. This RTI angle is a major reason the issue is spreading beyond finance circles into general current affairs. It also intersects with long-running public interest concerns about large borrowers versus small borrowers.

Technical write-off vs waiver: what changes, what does not

Several social posts stress that a write-off is not a loan waiver and does not automatically eliminate the borrower’s liability. In the framing shared online, a write-off is described as an internal accounting procedure where an uncollectible debt is removed from the active loan book and recorded as a loss. Commenters add that banks can still pursue recovery after a technical write-off through recovery proceedings, settlements, enforcement of security, or other legally permitted avenues. This distinction matters because some readers interpret “write-off” as the borrower being “let off,” which is not how it is described in the shared context. Another point made is that such write-offs can make the balance sheet look cleaner by removing bad assets from the live book. Posts also mention that write-offs allow banks to claim tax deductions on the recorded loss. The context further notes that credit bureaus can tag accounts as “Written Off,” which affects credit profiles. Even with these explanations, the debate persists because the public focus is on outcomes and disclosure rather than only definitions.

The wider PSU bank backdrop: ₹3.57 lakh crore write-offs

The Bank of Baroda numbers are being compared with system-level figures for PSBs shared in the same social media threads. The trending context cites that PSBs wrote off bad loans worth more than ₹3.57 lakh crore during the past five financial years. Over the same period, recoveries from written-off accounts are cited at about ₹1.65 lakh crore, as per a Lok Sabha update referenced in posts. This comparison is shaping the narrative that Bank of Baroda is one data point in a larger pattern. It is also leading to questions about the effectiveness of recovery frameworks and settlement mechanisms for large stressed accounts. Because the figures are large, users are debating whether write-offs are being used primarily as a clean-up tool or whether they reflect deeper credit underwriting problems. The same threads also mention that the total outstanding amount owed by wilful defaulters stood at ₹383,264 crore as of 31 March 2025. These numbers are being used to argue that stressed credit is not merely a historical issue. At the same time, the context does not provide bank-wise splits for the wilful defaulter outstanding figure, so linking it directly to a single bank requires caution.

What disclosures still leave unclear

Even with the headline figures, several important details are not visible in the trending material. The posts do not include a list of borrower names, which is the central RTI dispute. They also do not provide account-level timelines showing when each exposure turned into an NPA and when it was technically written off. Without such data, it is difficult for the public to separate cases where recovery is still ongoing from those where chances are minimal. Similarly, the settlement and haircut figure does not come with information on how much was originally claimed versus what was realised, or whether promoters contributed additional funds. The discussion also does not include how much security was available, how it was valued, or whether enforcement actions were taken before settlement. Another limitation is that the social media context does not present comparisons with other banks’ ₹100-crore-plus write-offs for the same period. That gap makes Bank of Baroda appear uniquely exposed in some posts, even though the wider PSB numbers suggest a system-wide phenomenon. These missing details are precisely why the transparency question has become as prominent as the accounting question.

Questions investors and the public are asking now

The online conversation shows two parallel concerns: financial cleanliness and public accountability. On one side, users ask whether technical write-offs are a necessary step to reflect reality on bank books and follow provisioning norms. On the other, they ask whether citing RTI exemptions is appropriate when the accounts involve very large dues in a public sector bank. Many posts also question what “less than 28% recovery” implies about the efficiency of recovery processes for large corporate loans. Others are asking how much recovery can still come in, given that write-off does not end legal rights to collect. A recurring theme is the difference between a write-off, a waiver, and a settlement haircut, and whether these terms are being conflated in popular discourse. Another theme is whether current disclosure practices provide enough information for citizens to evaluate performance without exposing sensitive personal details. The debate is likely to continue because the numbers are simple to share but the mechanisms behind them are complex. For readers, the most useful starting point is to separate the accounting label from the recovery outcome and the disclosure decision, because each has different implications.