Question map
What was the purpose of Inter-Creditor Agreement signed by Indian banks and financial institutions recently?
Explanation
The correct answer is option D. 24 banks signed an Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA) covering stressed accounts aggregating ₹3.10 lakh crore in the ₹50-500-crore category, with the ICA serving as a platform for banks and financial institutions to come together and take joint and concerted action towards resolution of stressed accounts, which have received loans and financial assistance under consortium lending/multiple banking arrangements[1]. The signing of the Intercreditor Agreement by banks in India is an important step by leading lenders in India to combat the rising menace of non-performing assets (NPAs)[2]. CDR is a non-statutory mechanism which is a voluntary system based on Debtor-Creditor Agreement (DCA) and Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA), with the ICA providing the legal basis to the CDR mechanism[3]. The other options are incorrect as the ICA was specifically designed for faster resolution of stressed assets under consortium lending arrangements, not for fiscal deficit management, infrastructure support, or acting as a loan regulator.
Sources- [1] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/banks-fis-come-together-for-faster-resolution-of-stressed-accounts/article24497398.ece
- [3] https://fidcindia.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/RBI-MASTER-DIRECTION-NBFC-19-10-2023.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question rewards 'Term Etymology' over rote memorization. Even without reading the news, the name 'Inter-Creditor' (Agreement between Creditors) logically points to resolving shared bad loans (Consortium lending), rather than funding the Government (Fiscal Deficit) or acting as a Regulator.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did the Inter-Creditor Agreement signed by Indian banks and financial institutions aim to lessen the Government of India's fiscal deficit and current account deficit?
- Statement 2: Did the Inter-Creditor Agreement signed by Indian banks and financial institutions aim to support infrastructure projects of the Central and State Governments?
- Statement 3: Did the Inter-Creditor Agreement signed by Indian banks and financial institutions act as an independent regulator for applications for loans of ₹50 crore or more?
- Statement 4: Did the Inter-Creditor Agreement signed by Indian banks and financial institutions aim at faster resolution of stressed assets of ₹50 crore or more that are under consortium lending?
- Explicitly states the ICA’s purpose: to enable banks and financial institutions to take joint action for resolution of stressed accounts.
- This links the ICA to addressing stressed loans/NPAs rather than to government fiscal or current account targets.
- Passage contains no language tying the ICA to reducing the Government of India’s fiscal deficit or current account deficit.
- Describes the ICA as a step to combat non-performing assets (NPAs) and resolve stressed assets.
- Reinforces that the ICA’s objective is bank/creditor-focused asset resolution, not macro fiscal or external account adjustment.
- No mention in the passage of fiscal deficit or current account deficit as ICA aims.
- Explains the ICA provides the legal basis for the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) mechanism.
- Positions the ICA within debt-restructuring/resolution frameworks rather than as an instrument to reduce government fiscal or current account deficits.
- Supports the view that ICA’s focus is creditor-debtor resolution, not government deficit management.
This snippet lists 'To lessen the Government of India's perennial burden of fiscal deficit and current account deficit' as one of the stated options for the purpose of the Inter-Creditor Agreement, showing the idea has been proposed as a possible purpose.
A student could treat this as a candidate purpose and check contemporary policy documents or press releases to see which option was actually adopted or emphasised.
Explains that historically India's banking system was 'a captive source of funds for the fiscal deficit' via directed credit and pre-emptions, indicating links between banks' lending behaviour and the government's fiscal position.
One could infer that agreements among creditors might affect how bank funds are allocated and thus could indirectly influence fiscal financing, then verify via data on bank holdings of government paper before/after the ICA.
Defines deficit financing and lists mechanisms (including borrowing from the RBI) showing how government deficits are financed, highlighting the broader fiscal context in which banks and financial institutions operate.
A student could combine this with knowledge of who finances government deficits (banks, markets, RBI) to assess whether an inter‑creditor agreement among banks plausibly targets those fiscal financing channels.
Describes historical reforms that changed how government deficit is financed (ending direct RBI monetisation), pointing to policy mechanisms used to manage fiscal deficits.
Use this to check whether the ICA aligns with other fiscal-management tools (like WMA limits) or addresses bank behaviour that affects government financing needs.
Discusses legal/policy measures (SARFAESI) aimed at improving banks' recovery of bad loans, implying creditor-side reforms tend to focus on loan recovery and NPA resolution rather than direct fiscal deficit reduction.
A student could use this pattern (creditor reforms targeting NPAs) to hypothesise that the ICA likely aimed at creditor coordination for loan resolution and then compare ICA text or announcements to see if fiscal-deficit reduction was a primary aim.
- Directly states the purpose of the ICA: to enable banks and financial institutions to take joint action for resolution of stressed accounts.
- This shows the ICA's aim was resolution of stressed loans, not to support government infrastructure projects.
- Identifies the ICA as the legal basis for the CDR (Corporate Debt Restructuring) mechanism, a voluntary system for restructuring debtor-creditor relationships.
- This links the ICA to debt restructuring processes rather than financing or supporting Central/State Government infrastructure projects.
- RBI guidance instructs banks/financial institutions to ensure loans/investments for infrastructure projects are not used to finance State Government budgets.
- This implies caution against using bank financing as direct support for State Government budgets, not that an ICA's aim was to support government infrastructure financing.
This snippet contains an exam-style question that lists 'To support the infrastructure projects of Central and State Governments' as a possible purpose of the Inter-Creditor Agreement — showing that this idea has been proposed as a plausible objective.
A student could treat this as an enumerated hypothesis and then check official ICA texts or RBI/finance ministry releases to confirm whether that option corresponds to the Agreement's stated aim.
Describes NIIF which channels funds from government, banks and FIs into infrastructure projects, illustrating a pattern where banks/FIs are organized to finance infrastructure.
One could infer that if banks/FIs commonly coordinate to finance infrastructure (as via NIIF), an inter-creditor coordination instrument might similarly be used to support such projects and then verify by checking ICA scope.
Shows a Central government scheme (Agriculture Infrastructure Fund) where banks and financial institutions provide loans for government-supported infrastructure, indicating precedent for government-linked infrastructure lending by banks/FIs.
A student could compare the ICA's description of eligible exposures with schemes like this to see if government infrastructure lending is explicitly covered.
Explains legal/institutional reforms (SARFAESI context) aimed at empowering banks and financial institutions in handling distressed assets — reflecting a broader pattern of measures to improve creditor coordination and recovery.
A student might reason that an Inter-Creditor Agreement fits the pattern of creditor coordination reforms and then look for ICA clauses on prioritisation or handling of large government-related infrastructure exposures.
Provides an example of a State Support Agreement where the government and a project company define state support for an infrastructure project, showing that government infrastructure projects often involve formal agreements and support structures.
A student could use this as context to ask whether ICAs are used alongside SSAs to coordinate creditor roles for such government-backed projects, and then seek documentary evidence linking ICAs to SSA-backed projects.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.
- Describes the ICA as a platform for joint resolution of stressed accounts in the ₹50–500 crore band, not as a regulatory body.
- Shows the ICA's purpose is coordinated action among lenders for resolution, implying an operational/resolution role rather than independent regulation of loan applications.
- States clearly that the ICA is part of a voluntary, non‑statutory mechanism (CDR) based on agreements, indicating it is not a statutory regulator.
- Identifies the ICA as providing legal basis to a voluntary resolution mechanism, rather than acting as an independent regulator over loan applications.
- RBI guidance requires fair practices for applications for all categories of loans irrespective of amount, indicating regulatory guidance over loan applications comes from the regulator (RBI) not from the ICA.
- Supports the view that application processing is covered by formal regulatory guidelines applicable across loan sizes, rather than by an inter-creditor agreement.
This source explicitly lists as a multiple‑choice option that the Inter‑Creditor Agreement's purpose was "to act as independent regulator in case of applications for loans of 50 crore or more," showing the claim exists in contemporary summaries/MCQs.
A student could treat this as a recorded claim and then check primary texts/news (the ICA document or RBI statements) or compare with standard regulatory roles to confirm or refute it.
Describes RBI's regulatory and supervisory function over banks and NBFCs and that RBI derives powers from statute, indicating regulators of banking activity are typically statutory (RBI) rather than private agreements.
Use the rule that statutory regulators (RBI) normally act as regulator and compare whether an inter‑creditor agreement could legally substitute for a statutory regulator for loan approvals ≥ ₹50 crore.
Lists the major Acts administered by RBI (e.g., RBI Act, Banking Regulation Act) which govern banking regulation—this suggests regulatory authority is anchored in legislation rather than private accords.
A student could check whether the ICA is backed by or referenced in any of these Acts or whether it operates outside these statutory frameworks when dealing with large loans.
Notes that RBI issues guidelines on resolution of NPAs applicable to various lenders, illustrating that RBI issues binding norms for lender conduct and resolution rather than inter‑creditor pacts acting as regulators.
Compare the scope and legal force of RBI circulars versus the ICA to judge whether an ICA could effectively 'act as an independent regulator' for large loan applications.
Explains that the Central Government consults appropriate financial sector regulators (e.g., RBI) when notifying financial service providers under IBC, demonstrating that formal designations and regulatory roles are decided by government/regulators.
Use this pattern to check whether any government notification or regulator consultation recognized the ICA as an independent regulator for loans ≥ ₹50 crore.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.
- Specifically states 24 banks signed an Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA) covering the ₹50–500-crore category.
- Describes the ICA as a platform for banks and financial institutions to take joint action towards resolution of stressed accounts under consortium lending/multiple banking arrangements.
- Notes an Intercreditor Agreement was incorporated for the resolution of stressed assets and executed by banks and financial institutions.
- Links the ICA drafting by the Indian Banks' Association to the Prudential framework aimed at resolving stressed assets.
Snippet presents a direct question asking the purpose of the Inter-Creditor Agreement and includes an answer option referring to loans of '50 crore or more', linking the Agreement to a threshold-based role.
A student could treat this as indicating the Agreement is concerned with large-loan cases and cross-check official texts or news about ICA scope and the ₹50 crore threshold for consortium accounts.
Describes RBI's 'Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets' aimed at early, transparent, time-bound resolution of stressed assets — a regulatory context in which inter-creditor coordination tools like an ICA would operate.
Use this rule (regulatory push for faster resolution) plus knowledge of consortium lending to infer that an ICA would likely target faster resolution for large stressed accounts.
Notes RBI issues directions for resolution of stressed assets and legal limits from the Supreme Court ruling — showing regulatory and legal mechanisms influence how banks resolve large NPAs.
Combine this with the idea that banks use agreements among themselves (ICAs) to implement RBI-stated goals for resolving large stressed loans.
Explains that RBI guidelines and amendments enable more lenders to move debtors to the Insolvency Code and that these guidelines apply to major lenders — implying coordinated lender action for large stressed exposures.
A student could infer that inter-creditor coordination (e.g., ICA) would be relevant for consortium accounts above certain sizes to operationalize movement to IBC or resolution plans.
Describes historical need for stronger recovery mechanisms to speed loan recovery, giving background rationale for measures (including inter-creditor tools) to accelerate resolution of defaults.
Use this background rationale plus knowledge of consortium loans to suspect ICAs were designed to improve recovery for large stressed accounts.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.
- [THE VERDICT]: Current Affairs Sitter. Derived directly from the 'Project Sashakt' and Sunil Mehta Committee recommendations (2018-19 headlines).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Banking Sector Reforms > NPA Resolution Mechanisms > Pre-IBC resolution frameworks.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Project Sashakt (5 Prongs), Sunil Mehta Committee, EASE Reforms (Enhanced Access and Service Excellence), Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) triggers, NARCL (Bad Bank) structure, and the difference between NCLT (IBC) and DRT.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When a new banking acronym appears (ICA, PCA, EASE), do not just memorize the full form. Map it to the specific 'Tier of Trouble' it addresses (e.g., ICA was specifically for ₹50cr-₹500cr assets under consortium lending).
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance. Available with ExamRobot Pro.
Explains instruments—monetization, Reserve Bank advances and public borrowing—used to finance the government's fiscal deficit.
High-yield for UPSC because understanding how the government finances deficits is central to questions on fiscal policy, macro stability and reform measures; links to RBI functions, FRBM limits and debates on monetization. Mastering this helps answer questions on causes, consequences and policy responses to fiscal imbalances.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 4: Government Budgeting > 4.9 Monetization of Deficit and Deficit Financing > p. 164
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 5: Indian Tax Structure and Public Finance > DEFICIT FINANCING > p. 113
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 5: Indian Tax Structure and Public Finance > Status of Deficit Financing in India > p. 114
Demonstrates how directed credit, CRR/SLR and statutory pre-emptions made banks a captive source of funds for government borrowing.
Important for questions connecting banking-sector structure with public finance and reform: explains why banking policies affect fiscal outcomes, and why banking reforms matter for fiscal consolidation and credit allocation. Enables evaluation of policy options that change the interaction between banks and government borrowing.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 3: Money and Banking - Part II > 3.1 History of Indian Banking and Reforms > p. 126
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 5: Indian Tax Structure and Public Finance > DEFICIT FINANCING > p. 113
Covers legal tools that allow banks and financial institutions to take possession of and sell security to recover defaulted loans, affecting banks' balance sheets and need for support.
Useful for UPSC topics on banking reforms and fiscal implications: resolving NPAs strengthens bank finances, reduces potential fiscal contingent liabilities and influences debates on lender coordination and restructuring. Helps tackle questions on institutional reforms to improve credit recovery.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 3: Money and Banking - Part II > The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act 2002) > p. 136
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 3: Money and Banking - Part II > 3.1 History of Indian Banking and Reforms > p. 126
NIIF and dedicated infrastructure funds mobilize debt and equity to finance Greenfield/Brownfield projects and can channel bank/FI resources into infrastructure.
High-yield: understanding these vehicles explains how government leverages public and private capital for large projects, links public finance to project-level financing and PPPs, and appears frequently in questions on infrastructure financing and investment policy.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF) > p. 439
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 10: Agriculture - Part I > 10.12 Agriculture Infrastructure Fund > p. 320
SARFAESI empowers banks/FIs to possess and sell secured assets, affecting recovery prospects, NPA management and therefore banks' ability to lend for infrastructure.
High-yield: mastering this legal mechanism clarifies reforms to banking recovery, NPA resolution, and credit supply — central to questions on banking sector health and reforms.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 3: Money and Banking - Part II > The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act 2002) > p. 136
State Support Agreements and revenue‑sharing frameworks define government backing and risk allocation in large infrastructure PPPs, influencing project bankability and lender coordination.
High-yield: knowledge of SSA/PPP design is crucial for questions on project finance, inter-governmental support mechanisms, and how such structures affect private and bank financing decisions.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > Case Study of Delhi Airport: > p. 423
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 14: Infrastructure and Investment Models > National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF) > p. 439
Determining whether a private agreement can act as a regulator requires knowing the statutory regulatory remit of the Reserve Bank of India over banks and NBFCs.
High-yield for UPSC because questions often test institutional roles and statutory authority in financial governance; links to banking law, financial stability, and policy responsibility. Mastering this helps answer questions on who can legitimately set binding regulatory norms versus market/contractual arrangements.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 2: Money and Banking- Part I > Commercial Banks > p. 67
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 2: Money and Banking- Part I > The following are the various functions of RBI: > p. 66
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts. Unlock micro-concepts with ExamRobot Pro.
The 'Project Sashakt' strategy had specific tiers: ICA was for loans up to ₹500 crore. For loans above ₹500 crore, the recommendation was an AMC/AIF (Asset Management Company/Alternative Investment Fund) model. UPSC may ask about the AMC/AIF model next.
Use the 'Legal Authority Test'. Option C says 'act as independent regulator'. A private agreement between banks cannot create a 'Regulator'; regulators (like RBI, SEBI) are created by Statutes (Acts of Parliament). This eliminates C immediately. Option A and B describe Government support, which is usually done via 'Budgetary Support' or 'Bonds', not an agreement *between* creditors.
Links to GS-3 (Indian Economy - Mobilization of Resources): The failure of voluntary mechanisms like ICA to resolve NPAs quickly is what necessitated the statutory rigidity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault. Unlock the Mentor's Vault with ExamRobot Pro.