Community

Yes, you are right.

The opinion express here was in context of NPCI Circular 009 on e-mandate from customer perspective. The mandate flow is always initiated by the merchant or corporate, not by the customer directly. The merchant sends the authentication request, and the customer is the one who will be debited and needs to approve and authenticate it.

While from a customer's perspective this does look like a standing instruction, the distinction between an e-mandate and a standing instruction (SI) mostly boils down to who is acting and how the transaction flow works. In the case of an SI, the customer explicitly instructs their own bank to make regular payments on their behalf to a beneficiary; this process is a “push” from the customer’s side. In contrast, with e-mandates, the merchant or corporate initiates the arrangement and effectively “pulls” the payment from the customer after one-time authentication. This aligns precisely with how the RBI and NPCI envision e-mandates: they are always pull-based products. Post authentication, the recurring debit is carried out by the merchant or service provider as per schedule, subject to the regulatory limits and controls.

Regarding the examples, some may appear to reflect the customer’s perspective, and this is natural since the impact is on their account. However, in every use case of an e-mandate, it’s ultimately the merchant or corporate entity who initiates the mandate to its customers for authentication and future execution. The process can be confusing when looking only from the customer’s side, but structurally, these are never customer-initiated with the bank, unlike standing instructions.

To address the ambiguity, i have edited the Mandate initition line. Thank you.