In a recent development, the Indian Supreme Court decided against hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that was intended to lay down a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency trading in the country. The court, under the leadership of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), indicated that the nature of the petition was more legislative than judicial after hearing the plea.
Dismissal of the Crypto Petition
The bench, which included Justice JD Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed the plea due to its legislative character. The petitioner’s request for regulations and guidelines for cryptocurrency and its trading was seen as a means to obtain bail. The petitioner, Manu Prashant Wig, is currently under custody by the Delhi Police for a case related to cryptocurrency.
Wig, a former director at Blue Fox Motion Picture Limited, was accused by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police of luring people to invest in cryptocurrency with the promise of high returns. A case was filed against him in 2020 by 133 investors who claimed they were deceived by Wig. Despite the dismissal of the PIL, the Supreme Court allowed Wig to seek legal remedies and approach other relevant authorities.
The Current State of Crypto Trading in India
As of now, the status of cryptocurrency trading in India remains contentious due to the lack of clear rules, guidelines, or specific frameworks for handling cryptocurrencies. The country is said to be working on a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency, based on joint recommendations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB).
The outcome of these deliberations could result in legal legislation within the next five to six months. However, the court’s reluctance to intervene in this crypto petition highlights the legislative, rather than judicial, nature of cryptocurrency regulation.
Understanding the Legal Landscape
During the court hearing, the CJI advised the petitioner to seek bail from a different court, expressing doubts about the plea for cryptocurrency trading regulations. The court emphasized that such demands are typically addressed by the legislative branch, not the judiciary. It further clarified that it could not issue directives under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
For those interested in understanding the evolving legal landscape of cryptocurrency in India, the cryptoview.io application provides valuable insights and updates.
