logo
Supreme Court asks central government why crypto trading can't be regulated

Supreme Court asks central government why crypto trading can't be regulated

Hindustan Times19-05-2025

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the central government's prolonged inaction on regulating cryptocurrencies and said that the absence of a clear legal framework haS created a fertile ground for 'misuse.' The Court also reiterated that unregulated Bitcoin trading was 'nothing but a more polished form of Hawala,' an informal and illegal method of transferring money across countries.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made the remarks while hearing a bail petition filed by Gujarat resident Shailesh Babulal Bhatt, who has been accused of cryptocurrency related fraud across multiple states. Though the bail plea itself was unrelated to broader policy matters, the bench to expressed its concern over the lack of regulation in the cryptocurrency sector. It also questioned why the Enforcement Directorate, the prosecuting agency in the case,felt the need to arrest Bhatt after completion of its probe when it had not arrested him while its investigation was ongoing.
The bench reminded the union government that nearly 'two years ago,' the top court sought clarity on India's policy regarding virtual currencies. It added that banning cryptocurrencies outright would be unwise, as newer financial mechanisms were evolving in global trade, but that some form of regulation was a must. The government's failure to regulate the space, the apex court said, amounted to turning a 'blind eye' to a pressing issue.
Also Read: Pune businessman falls prey to Bitcoin fraud, loses ₹23.24 lakh
'Nobody is saying to stop it since you have said earlier that cryptocurrency is not illegal and banning it will not be wise for the economy. Banning may be shutting your eyes to the ground reality. But what about regulating it?'
While the Union's counsel. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati sought time to secure instructions, the Court also raised concerns about the evidentiary challenges that law enforcement might face in the absence of a legal definition or framework for crypto assets.
'If tomorrow somebody asks, 'Prove what is this asset, how are we going to prove it?' We are not experts. Experts will have examine it, but some steps to regulate it are necessary. We are told crypto trading is very volatile..today a Bitcoin might be worth lakhs and tomorrow it can mean nothing,' the bench said.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Bhatt, had earlier argued that Bitcoin trading was not illegal in India, particularly after the Supreme Court in 2020 struck down a Reserve Bank of India circular that had barred banks from facilitating crypto-related transactions. He had argued that Bhatt's arrest was unjustified in the absence of a law banning such activity.
Currently, India imposes a flat 30% tax on profits from cryptocurrency transactions and a 1% tax deducted at source on every trade. However, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are neither recognised as legal tender nor banned outright. RBI has repeatedly warned of the risks associated with crypto investments, even as it promotes the Digital Rupee, a central bank digital currency. A draft bill to regulate cryptocurrencies was prepared in 2021 but is yet to be tabled in Parliament.
In July 2023, another bench of the Supreme Court directed the union government to clarify if it intended to 'set up a federal agency to investigate criminal cases involving cryptocurrencies.' At the time, the court had said it was 'unfortunate' that the Union government did not have either a law to regulate digital currencies or an expert agency to probe such matters.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sebi to launch UPI IDs for Sebi-registered entities that collect funds
Sebi to launch UPI IDs for Sebi-registered entities that collect funds

Economic Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Sebi to launch UPI IDs for Sebi-registered entities that collect funds

Synopsis The new ecosystem will enable a secure and transparent payment system for investors to transact with registered intermediaries. Nikita Papers IPO opens on May 27, price band set at Rs 95-104 per share Nikita Papers IPO opens on May 27, price band set at Rs 95-104 per share Why gold prices could surpass $4,000: JP Morgan's bullish outlook explained Why gold prices could surpass $4,000: JP Morgan's bullish outlook explained Cyient shares fall over 9% after Q4 profit declines, core business underperforms Cyient shares fall over 9% after Q4 profit declines, core business underperforms L&T Technology Services shares slide 7% after Q4 profit dips L&T Technology Services shares slide 7% after Q4 profit dips Trump-Powell standoff puts U.S. Rate policy in crosshairs: Who will blink first? Trump-Powell standoff puts U.S. Rate policy in crosshairs: Who will blink first? SEBI warns of securities market frauds via YouTube, Facebook, X and more SEBI warns of securities market frauds via YouTube, Facebook, X and more API Trading for All: Pi42 CTO Satish Mishra on How Pi42 is Empowering Retail Traders API Trading for All: Pi42 CTO Satish Mishra on How Pi42 is Empowering Retail Traders Security, transparency, and innovation: What sets Pi42 apart in crypto trading Security, transparency, and innovation: What sets Pi42 apart in crypto trading Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Altcoins? How investors are structuring their crypto portfolios, Avinash Shekhar explains Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Altcoins? How investors are structuring their crypto portfolios, Avinash Shekhar explains The rise of Crypto Futures in India: Leverage, tax efficiency, and market maturity, Avinash Shekhar of Pi42 explains NEXT STORY

Supreme Court refuses to reduce sentence of advocate who abused woman magistrate in 2015
Supreme Court refuses to reduce sentence of advocate who abused woman magistrate in 2015

Indian Express

time36 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Supreme Court refuses to reduce sentence of advocate who abused woman magistrate in 2015

The Supreme Court Tuesday decided not to interfere with a Delhi High Court order which refused to reduce the sentence awarded to an advocate for outraging the modesty of a woman judicial officer in 2015, and granted him two weeks to surrender. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan recorded that it is 'not inclined to interfere with the orders' passed by the Delhi High Court against advocate Sanjay Rathore and dismissed his plea. In October 2015, the complainant judicial officer was serving as a metropolitan magistrate in the Karkardooma court when Rathore, enraged by an adjournment in his matter in his absence, verbally abused the officer, including using gendered abusive language. An FIR was subsequently lodged at the Farsh Bazar police station. Rathore was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment under Indian Penal Code Section 509 (intending to outrage modesty of a woman), three months under Section 189 (injury to public servant), and an additional three months under Section 353 (assault or criminal force against public servant to deter them from their duty). It was directed that the sentences should run consecutively, thereby resulting in a total sentence of two years. The Delhi High Court, while refusing to reduce the sentence, however, modified it so that the sentences could run concurrently instead of consecutively. As a result, Rathore was sentenced to a total of one year and six months in prison. The high court, in its order of May 26, emphasised that acts threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through 'gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself, and must be met with firm accountability'. While refusing Rathore any relief, it further recorded in its order, 'The act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings, seated on the dais and discharging her solemn duty of dispensing justice, in this court's opinion, attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and the institutional integrity.'

‘Intra-Family Discord': Allahabad HC Quashes Gangrape Case Citing Amicable Settlement
‘Intra-Family Discord': Allahabad HC Quashes Gangrape Case Citing Amicable Settlement

News18

time39 minutes ago

  • News18

‘Intra-Family Discord': Allahabad HC Quashes Gangrape Case Citing Amicable Settlement

Last Updated: Court noted that the accused and the victim were close relatives, and the victim had voluntarily entered into a compromise without coercion. The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a gang-rape case registered against a man accused of assaulting his sister-in-law, citing an amicable settlement between the parties. A complaint was filed in 2015 at Didauli Police Station in Amroha district, wherein Rakesh alias Rakesh Kumar was booked under Sections 452, 376(D), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code—charges relating to house trespass, gang rape, and criminal intimidation. The complainant, who is the accused's bhabhi (sister-in-law), later approached the court supporting an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case, stating that the dispute originated from family discord and had been resolved through mutual understanding. A joint affidavit recording the compromise was submitted. The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar noted that although allegations under Section 376(D) were of a grave and non-compoundable nature, the circumstances of the case did not warrant the continuation of prosecution. Court observed that the relationship between the accused and the victim, as well as the voluntary nature of the compromise, made it an exceptional matter warranting judicial intervention. 'The victim has consciously, willingly, and without any coercion entered into the compromise. In such circumstances, continuing the prosecution would not advance the cause of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of law," the court held. Importantly, the judgment cited precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein courts were permitted to quash proceedings of personal nature to prevent undue hardship and protracted litigation. While underscoring that justice should serve both individual and societal interests, the court took the view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the trial to continue. 'The victim is close family members of the applicant, and the genesis of the dispute appears to be an intra-family discord rather than a criminal act impacting society at large and public morality," the judge observed. The court thus quashed the chargesheet dated May 17, 2015, the cognizance order of August 13, 2015, and all proceedings in the 2016 sessional trial pending before the Fast Track Court-I, Amroha.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store