RBI’s Draft Model Risk Management Guidelines, 2026; What NBFCs using AI/ML Need to Know
RBI has published a draft “Guidance on Regulatory Principles for Model Risk Management, 2026” for public consultation and it’s the first time AI/ML models used in credit underwriting, customer interaction and other business processes get a dedicated regulatory lens, applicable across the full spectrum of REs, including NBFC-BL, ML, UL and TL.
Here’s what stood out for NBFCs deploying AI/ML:
๐. ๐๐ญ’๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ “๐๐” โ ๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐๐ A “model” now covers any system โ including spreadsheet-based tools โ that takes inputs, applies processing logic, and produces outputs materially affecting decisions, irrespective of whether the RE itself labels it a “model.” A loan pricing calculator that drives lending rates qualifies. Many NBFCs may discover they’re running more “models” than they thought.
๐. ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ฒ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ โ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐-๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ/๐ฏ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ Many NBFCs lean on fintech/vendor-provided AI for underwriting or collections scoring. The draft makes clear: outsourcing the model doesn’t outsource the risk. Independent validation by the RE is mandatory regardless of any certification the vendor provides, plus enhanced RMCB oversight irrespective of risk tier, and contractual rights to technical documentation and audit access.
๐. ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ Credit underwriting models fall squarely in “material decision-making” territory โ meaning higher explainability thresholds apply. If a model (e.g., a black-box ML scorecard) can’t fully explain itself, NBFCs must compensate with enhanced validation, output verification, frequent monitoring and usage restrictions.
๐. ๐๐ข๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐ญ NBFCs must proactively identify risks of discriminatory outputs โ especially unfair treatment of customer groups in credit decisions โ run fairness assessments, and recalibrate or redesign where needed.
๐. ๐๐ก๐๐ญ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ฌ, ๐ฏ๐จ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ฌ & ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ซ๐๐ซ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฌ For any AI model interfacing with customers, NBFCs must:
- Disclose to customers that they’re interacting with an AI/ML system, with its limitations;
- Provide an option to switch to a human when requested;
- Guard against hallucinations via system-level controls (critical for generative AI);
- Build in protections against prompt injection, adversarial inputs and anomalous usage;
- Run structured “red-teaming” / challenge testing on such models
๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ง-๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ Human-in-the-loop/on-the-loop arrangements, kill-switch/override mechanisms, and periodic human review of AI-driven decisions are mandated โ with explicit attention to “automation bias” and decision fatigue among reviewing staff.
๐. ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ ๐จ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ฏ๐๐ฅ A Board-approved Model Risk Management Framework covering AI/ML models is mandatory, with high-risk models requiring Risk Management Committee of the Board (RMCB) approval, risk-based tiering, a living model inventory, and decommissioned models retained for 10+ years.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐๐ค๐๐๐ฐ๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฌ: this is currently in draft/consultation stage and will eventually replace Chapter 3 (Credit Risk Models) of RBI’s 2002 Guidance Note on Credit Risk Management. NBFCs using AI/ML for credit underwriting, collections, or customer-facing chat/voice interfaces should start mapping their existing models against this framework now โ inventory, validation independence, explainability thresholds, and human oversight will likely demand real governance uplift, not just policy paperwork.

Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!