Editorial-08/08/2026
Pay Wall: On a Charge on UPI Transactions
The proposed policy framework allowing charges on certain Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions has reopened an important debate: can India’s most successful digital public infrastructure remain financially sustainable without compromising affordability and inclusion? The issue is not merely about a few paise being charged on a digital payment. It concerns the relationship between public infrastructure, private participation, consumer welfare, technological innovation and the constitutional promise of inclusive development.
The government has not immediately imposed a charge on UPI transactions. The proposed amendment to the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, would instead create a legal framework under which the Centre could decide, through future notifications, whether particular electronic payment modes should attract charges. The Bill does not specify a rate, a deadline or the exact class of transactions that may be covered. Therefore, the present controversy is about the possibility of future charges rather than an immediate alteration in the everyday UPI experience.
UPI as Digital Public Infrastructure
UPI has transformed India’s payment ecosystem. It has made instant, interoperable and largely cost-free digital payments available to individuals, small traders, street vendors, businesses and public institutions. Unlike traditional card-based systems, UPI allows payments directly through bank accounts, reducing dependence on physical cash and lowering barriers to formal economic participation.
The system has also become an important instrument of financial inclusion. A small shopkeeper does not need a costly card machine to receive payment. A customer does not have to carry cash. A migrant worker can transfer money instantly to a family member. A street vendor, domestic worker or small farmer can participate in digital commerce with a mobile phone and a bank account.
UPI’s success is partly attributable to its open and interoperable design. Consumers are not locked into one bank or one payment application. Several applications can transact across the same underlying system. This has encouraged competition among banks and fintech companies and has enabled India to build a digital payment architecture at a scale rarely seen elsewhere.
The zero-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) regime has played a major role in this expansion. MDR is the fee paid by a merchant to banks, payment networks and payment service providers for processing a digital transaction. Since January 2020, UPI and RuPay debit card transactions have been exempt from MDR in order to encourage digital adoption. UPI now processes nearly 660 million transactions a day, demonstrating how deeply it has entered India’s economic life.
However, the apparent “free” nature of UPI does not mean that the system has no cost. Banks, payment service providers and technology companies incur expenses on servers, cybersecurity, fraud prevention, customer support, network maintenance, compliance and innovation. At present, a considerable part of these costs is borne indirectly through government incentives and the wider banking ecosystem.
This raises a legitimate question: how long can a rapidly expanding and systemically important payment network depend on a subsidy-supported model?
The Case for a Carefully Designed Charge
The principal argument in favour of introducing MDR on selected UPI transactions is financial sustainability. Banks and fintech companies contend that payment volumes are rising rapidly while revenue from individual transactions remains negligible or non-existent. If the infrastructure is to remain secure, reliable and capable of handling future growth, it requires a stable source of funding.
A sustainable revenue model may also reduce excessive dependence on the government budget. Public funds are limited and must support competing priorities such as health, education, rural development, social protection and infrastructure. An annual incentive to compensate payment intermediaries may be justified during the adoption phase, but it may not be the most efficient permanent arrangement for a mature and indispensable payment system.
The argument becomes stronger in the case of large merchants. Major e-commerce companies, organised retailers, airlines, hotels and large service providers derive significant commercial value from seamless digital payments. They save on cash handling, improve transaction records, reduce reconciliation costs and gain access to valuable consumer data. A modest fee on high-value transactions conducted by large commercial entities may therefore be economically defensible.
Reports indicate that one possible approach is to apply MDR only to transactions above ₹2,000 made by merchants with annual turnover above ₹1 crore to ₹1.5 crore. Such a design would cover only a small share of all UPI transactions, reportedly around 5 per cent. Other estimates have referred to an MDR in the range of 0.3 per cent to 0.5 per cent for specified high-value transactions.
A targeted model could preserve free digital payments for personal transfers, small merchants and low-value transactions while creating a revenue stream from those most capable of absorbing the cost. This would be preferable to an indiscriminate levy on every transaction.
A charge could also encourage payment platforms to improve service quality. At present, payment applications compete heavily for market share, often relying on incentives and discounts. A transparent and regulated revenue model may allow them to invest more consistently in cybersecurity, grievance redressal, fraud detection and technological resilience.
Risks of Passing the Cost to Consumers
The government has clarified that any proposed MDR would apply to merchants and not to end users. The Finance Minister has stated that consumers would not be directly charged for making UPI payments. This distinction is important, but it does not entirely eliminate the risk to consumers.
In competitive markets, merchants may attempt to pass transaction costs to customers through higher prices, additional convenience charges or restrictions on preferred payment modes. Large businesses may absorb a modest fee, but smaller businesses operating on thin margins may find it difficult to do so. Even where the law prohibits a direct customer fee, the economic burden may indirectly reach consumers.
The greatest danger is psychological rather than merely financial. UPI’s appeal rests on the perception that it is simple, universal and free. A public belief that digital payments are becoming costly could slow adoption. Consumers may return to cash, particularly for small-value transactions. This would weaken the movement towards a less-cash economy and could reintroduce problems associated with cash handling, tax evasion, theft and informality.
Small merchants may also suffer if payment companies impose charges indirectly. A neighbourhood grocery store or roadside vendor may not have the bargaining power to negotiate with banks or payment service providers. The cost of a digital transaction, even if small, may appear significant when multiplied across hundreds of daily transactions.
A charge may additionally affect India’s digital inclusion goals. Individuals in rural and semi-urban areas are often more sensitive to transaction costs, network failures and uncertainty. If digital payment becomes associated with hidden charges, some users may prefer cash or informal credit arrangements. This would particularly affect those who have only recently entered the formal financial system.
The Problem of Regulatory Uncertainty
The proposed amendment is an enabling provision, not a complete charging mechanism. It gives the government flexibility to notify charges in the future, but the absence of clear statutory principles raises questions about accountability and predictability.
The power to determine which digital payment modes remain free and which attract charges should be exercised transparently. The government must clarify the criteria that would guide future notifications. Would charges be based on transaction value, merchant turnover, payment cost, market power, service category or the ability to pay? Would the same rules apply to UPI, debit cards and other electronic modes? Would certain sectors such as healthcare, education and public utilities be exempt?
Excessive discretion may create uncertainty for merchants and payment companies. Businesses need to know their transaction costs before designing pricing models and investing in digital infrastructure. Frequent changes in MDR rates or transaction categories could discourage innovation and create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.
There is also a need for institutional consultation. The Reserve Bank of India, the National Payments Corporation of India, banks, fintech firms, merchant associations, consumer groups and state governments should participate in the policy process. The final structure should emerge from evidence-based consultation rather than lobbying by any single stakeholder group.
The debate must also remain independent of external commercial pressure. International card networks and foreign payment companies may have an interest in India changing the relative cost structure of digital payments. India’s payment policy should be guided by domestic developmental priorities, competition, consumer protection and technological sovereignty—not by pressure from foreign commercial interests. At the same time, policy autonomy should not become an excuse for ignoring legitimate concerns about market competition and sustainability.
A Tiered and Proportionate Model
The most appropriate solution would be a tiered MDR framework. It should distinguish between users, merchants and transaction categories rather than imposing a uniform charge.
First, person-to-person transfers should remain completely free. Individuals transferring money to family members, paying rent or sharing expenses should not be brought within the charging framework.
Second, low-value merchant payments should remain free. Small vendors and micro-enterprises should be protected because they are central to financial inclusion and often operate with limited margins. A turnover-based exemption would be more appropriate than a transaction-value criterion alone.
Third, high-value transactions by large merchants could attract a modest, capped MDR. The rate should be low enough to avoid consumer pass-through and high enough to contribute meaningfully to system sustainability. A maximum ceiling per transaction could prevent disproportionate costs on expensive purchases.
Fourth, essential services should receive special treatment. Payments for government services, public transport, healthcare, education, insurance premiums and social welfare should either remain free or be subject to strict limits. Citizens should not be discouraged from paying taxes, utility bills or public charges digitally.
Fifth, the government should prohibit arbitrary “convenience fees” on consumers for using UPI. Merchants should be required to display payment-related charges transparently, and violations should attract proportionate penalties. Consumer protection authorities must monitor whether the MDR is being disguised as a surcharge.
The revenue collected should not simply become an additional source of private profit. A portion should be earmarked for maintaining the payment infrastructure, strengthening cybersecurity, supporting rural connectivity, improving customer grievance mechanisms and subsidising low-value transactions. Such ring-fencing would make the policy more legitimate.
Beyond MDR: Alternative Funding Options
MDR is not the only possible way to finance UPI. The government and regulators should explore a diversified funding model.
A small universal digital payments fund could be created through contributions from banks, payment firms and large beneficiaries of the digital ecosystem. Large technology platforms that gain from payment data, advertising and customer acquisition could contribute more than small banks or micro-merchants.
Cross-subsidisation is another possibility. Premium financial services, high-value corporate transactions and value-added payment products could generate revenue to support free basic payments. Banks could also monetise complementary services such as working-capital loans, insurance and merchant analytics, while ensuring that customer privacy is protected.
Government support may continue to be justified because UPI has characteristics of a public good. It supports formalisation, transparency, tax compliance and financial inclusion, producing benefits beyond the immediate participants in a transaction. However, such support should be predictable, performance-linked and periodically reviewed.
The system must also address concentration risks. A few large applications account for a substantial share of UPI transactions. A new charging regime should not strengthen dominant platforms at the expense of smaller competitors. Interoperability, data protection and fair access should remain central to regulation.
The Larger Policy Lesson
The UPI debate illustrates a broader challenge in public policy: public infrastructure often begins with state support but eventually requires a sustainable institutional and financial model. The government cannot indefinitely treat essential digital infrastructure as costless. At the same time, commercial sustainability cannot be pursued in a manner that undermines inclusion.
The correct policy is therefore neither an absolute refusal to consider charges nor an unrestricted move towards monetisation. It is a carefully calibrated model based on the principles of proportionality, transparency, universal access and accountability.
UPI should not become a “pay wall” that divides citizens according to their ability to pay. Nor should the system be forced to operate indefinitely without a credible funding mechanism. A free basic layer, targeted charges on large and high-value commercial transactions, continued public support for inclusion, and strict protection against consumer pass-through can provide a balanced path.
Conclusion
India’s digital payment revolution has been built on trust, accessibility and low cost. Any policy that threatens these foundations must be approached with caution. The immediate reassurance that consumers will not be charged is welcome, but the long-term design of the system requires much greater clarity.
A transaction charge may be justified where it supports the sustainability of UPI and is imposed on entities capable of bearing it. It would be counterproductive if it raised costs for ordinary users, weakened small merchants or encouraged a return to cash. The government must therefore ensure that UPI remains a public-facing digital utility rather than turning into a purely commercial toll network.
The objective should be to build a payment system that is financially viable, technologically secure and socially inclusive. In the final analysis, the success of UPI will not be measured merely by the revenue it generates, but by whether it continues to empower the weakest participant in India’s economy.
Download Pdf
