Vijay Shekhar Sharma

Following persistent compliance and supervisory deficiencies, the RBI imposed restrictions in January 2024 that virtually halted new business at Paytm Payments Bank. Sharma stepped down as non-executive chairman and left the board in February. On 24 April 2026, the RBI ultimately revoked the licence, finding, among other things, that the bank's management was detrimental to depositors and the public interest.

State of the evidence

RBI orders, board departure and licence revocation documented

Legal status — source text

Banking licence revoked on 24 April 2026; winding-up proceedings announced

Attribution

Sharma held 51% of PPBL and managed/chaired the bank for much of the period; the sanction legally targets the bank

In August 2026, Paytm disclosed that its management, including Vijay Shekhar Sharma, had received a SEBI show-cause notice concerning the timing of its December 2023 announcement of a reduction in small personal loans following regulatory tightening.

State of the evidence

SEBI show-cause notice and company disclosure documented

Legal status — source text

Regulatory proceedings ongoing as at 27 August 2026

Attribution

Sharma is among the key management personnel named in the notice

Delhi police arrested Vijay Shekhar Sharma after a vehicle he was allegedly driving collided with a Deputy Commissioner of Police's vehicle. He was prosecuted under the provision concerning reckless driving.

State of the evidence

FIR, arrest and bail documented

Legal status — source text

Arrested then released on bail; no final conviction found

The RBI again prohibited Paytm Payments Bank from onboarding new customers and ordered an IT audit, citing 'material supervisory concerns'. Reports also alleged possible data sharing with Chinese entities.

State of the evidence

RBI order and Sharma's public response documented

Legal status — source text

Regulatory restriction imposed on the bank; no public RBI finding of data transfers to China

Attribution

Sharma promoted and controlled the bank; allegation of data sharing with China expressly disputed

Paytm's DRHP reveals that seven FIRs in Bhopal had initially named Vijay Shekhar Sharma following fraud committed by third parties impersonating Paytm employees or using the platform.

State of the evidence

Litigation disclosed in Paytm's DRHP

Legal status — source text

Investigating authorities had informed Sharma that he had been discharged; High Court petitions were still pending at the time of the DRHP

Attribution

Initially named in FIRs but ultimately not implicated by investigators

Paytm conducted one of India's largest IPOs, but its shares fell by more than 27% during their first trading session, amid criticism of the high valuation, profitability and business model.

State of the evidence

IPO and stock market performance documented

Legal status — source text

No proceedings

Attribution

CEO/founder responsibility for strategy and valuation, without established regulatory wrongdoing in this matter

The RBI prevented Paytm Payments Bank from opening new accounts in 2018. Reasons disclosed through RTI included KYC deficiencies, compliance with the account balance ceiling, net worth issues and the close relationship between the bank and One97 Communications.

State of the evidence

RBI restriction and reasons obtained through RTI documented

Legal status — source text

Restriction imposed on the bank; lifted following remedial action

Attribution

Sharma was the founder and majority shareholder; no personal criminal sanction

Following demonetisation, Paytm published prominent advertisements featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi's photograph and experienced strong growth in usage. The campaign prompted allegations of political closeness, and the government asked whether the required prior authorisation had been obtained.

State of the evidence

Advertising campaign and government notice documented

Legal status — source text

Notice under the Emblems and Names Act; no personal sanction established

Attribution

Founder/CEO responsibility for a company advertising campaign; the notice was directed at Paytm