One outcome of the devastating, once-in-a lifetime pandemic is a grim realisation about our lack of preparedness for unexpected tragedies. Those who have lost loved ones over the past 20 months had to run the harrowing gauntlet of succession issues, while trying to come to terms with their loss. The problem is not limited to the pandemic and its enormity is clear from these numbers.
A collation by Recoversy.in puts the value of unclaimed financial assets at a stupendous Rs1.4 lakh crore as on 30 March 2020. This was before the pandemic really unleashed its devastation and the new numbers would be significantly higher.
The sheer number of deaths, often within a family, ought to create a sense of urgency to put in place a holistic, humane and speedy system to deal with transmission and succession issues. Remember, a Will allows a person to decide how to distribute her assets, but the process of fulfilling those wishes is harrowing and urgently needs disruptive reform.
In the hierarchy of vital changes that are needed, fixing our slow, expensive and broken legal system would be at the top of the list, but it is also the most challenging and least likely to happen. A white paper titled 'Making Succession Smoother and Simpler' by Pramod Rao for the Association of Registered Investment Advisers (ARIA) notes that it takes 8-10 months (and a fat fee) to obtain a probate in uncontested Wills and around 6-9 years if it is contested—often longer. Succession certificates have a similar time frame. The pandemic has only extended these timelines. Imagine the plight of people who lost multiple family members to COVID-19 after having already depleted their resources on hospitalisation costs.
At a time when savings and investment records are all digitally stored, it is possible to move past incremental improvements and work at a holistic, technology-based solution that will bring about transformational change. The key is for our financial and realty regulators to work together to make this happen. We need to build public pressure to make it happen and move past small modifications.
For instance, on 18th October, the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) asked (SEBI Asks RTAs To Transmit Securities in Favour of Surviving Joint-holder) registrars to issues and share transfer agents to transmit securities in favour of surviving joint-holder/s on the death of one or more joint-holder/s. This clarification followed a complaint to the regulator.
A few days before this, a Whatsapp forward had resurfaced claiming that a survivor with a joint fixed deposit in a bank cannot break it prematurely and access funds without concurrence from all legal heirs. Astonishingly, this message remains in circulation in October 2021, although the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has clarified the issue in August 2012. On the death of a joint-holder, banks have been told to permit premature withdrawal without penalty – subject to the existence of a joint mandate obtained from both account-holders while opening the account. But RBI found that banks have neither included this clause in account opening forms nor followed RBI directives to spread awareness about it. A previous circular dated 9 June 2005 was entirely devoted to simplify the nomination and transmission process, which has been updated to insert this clarification.
The core of the circular says that banks need to take necessary precautions while transferring account proceeds to nominees, but cannot make 'superfluous and unwarranted' demands such as seeking bonds, indemnities and sureties from the nominees, or it would 'invite serious supervisory disapproval'. Even where there is no nomination, RBI is clear that banks should keep in view "the imperative need to avoid inconvenience and undue hardship to the common person." This continues to be ignored.
The 2005 circular says that the Indian Banks' Association was to formulate a 'Model Operating Procedure' to settle claims of deceased account-holders in various circumstances; but banks continue to follow arbitrary processes and demand indemnities and sureties.
The continued harassment of nominees is solely due to RBI's half-hearted instructions allowing banks to use their discretion rather than issuing standard operating procedures (SOP) for dealing with nominations and transmission.
As the ARIA paper says, the need of the hour is a holistic system that works across all assets, puts in place standard rules and protocols for transmission of financial assets and covers the needs of minor children and incapacitated seniors. The question is: Who will bell the cat? Leading banker KV Kamath, in a foreword to the ARIA report, says: "All that this needs is a short and coordinated effort of say six months, from all the parties involved, and if required, facilitated by the Regulators who could consider modifying the regulations to enable the institutions to use these new approaches." In a few cases, the government might need to modify the governing laws to make this happen, he adds.
Some simple steps suggested by ARIA are:
A high-powered group at the finance ministry or NITI Aayog with a time-bound mandate to set the rules and processes and ensure that these are implemented by all regulators is the ideal way forward. But we will need to build public pressure to get the policy-makers to perceive and recognise the problem.
We request readers who have had a tough time getting their money as nominees to write to foundation@moneylife.in with details. We intend to take this issue forward and actual experiences and case studies would be of great help. You can request that your name is not to be revealed, if you so desire. — Sucheta Dalal