Indian Supreme court rejects PIL to establish regulations for crypto trading

[Bitcoin Smith]

The Indian Supreme Court declined to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aimed to establish regulations and a framework of guidelines for cryptocurrency trading in India.

According to a report, the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), after listening to the plea, remarked that the petitioner’s demands are more legislative in nature. The Supreme Court noted that despite the petitioner filing a PIL requesting regulations and guidelines for cryptocurrency and its trading, the underlying objective is to secure bail.

Significantly, Manu Prashant Wig, the petitioner, is presently held in custody by the Delhi Police in connection to a cryptocurrency case. The Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police filed a case in 2020, accusing Wig of enticing individuals to invest in crypto with promises of higher returns.

Indian Supreme court rejects crypto petition, highlights legislative nature

I understand that the objective of the petitioner is to bail him out of this case but how they can dismiss the case such like that despite being Public interest litigation for crypto framework since its not just included the only person but the whole community. Do you think this can be reopened if someone petitioned for the actual cause and which will push the government further to enact the laws not just tax.

[pakhitheboss]

I understand that the objective of the petitioner is to bail him out of this case but how they can dismiss the case such like that despite being Public interest litigation for crypto framework since its not just included the only person but the whole community. Do you think this can be reopened if someone petitioned for the actual cause and which will push the government further to enact the laws not just tax.

CJI represents the government of India in the Supreme court. It is already clear that regulation will happen after the central government election. The recently held G20 summit there was a unanimous decision taken by all countries on having a regulation in this industry. The framework is already in already ready as per my understanding but few details pertaining to the local laws are being looked into. We need to wait a year or so to actually see the regulatory law in action.

[TheUltraElite]

I am not really angry at this because the petitioner is a scammer and those who have been using crypto as a means to stay anonymous and scam innocent people of their hard earned money need to be treated as such and not given bail but punished.

The scammer tried to twist the nature of crypto trading to their advantage in the hearing and that could have given them a favorable position on the legal side of things.

Dont take the CJI's words as just "central government's mouthpiece" - they are delivering justice here, they know how to remain impartial to both sides.

[Bitcoin Smith]

CJI represents the government of India in the Supreme court. It is already clear that regulation will happen after the central government election. The recently held G20 summit there was a unanimous decision taken by all countries on having a regulation in this industry.

Yes, I can understand that but the judgement could be a little different like the framework will be implemented or its already in process by the government of India so we don't need to discuss like that but I agree with not giving the bail for a scammer and its rare to see scammers get punished in our justice system.

[kentrolla]

Interesting as a scammer who should be rotting in jail for scamming people of their hard earned money is filing petition to regulate crypto trading? If God forbids the crypto trading is regulated then it will lose the basis essential on which crypto came into existence and it will be final nail in coffin because already Indian crypto exchanges are laying off people and at the verge of closing as they lost huge chunk of user due to tax applied for trading.

Hope this scammer don't get bail and no regulation is applied to crypto trading.

[pawanjain]

I understand that the objective of the petitioner is to bail him out of this case but how they can dismiss the case such like that despite being Public interest litigation for crypto framework since its not just included the only person but the whole community. Do you think this can be reopened if someone petitioned for the actual cause and which will push the government further to enact the laws not just tax.

I get your point and I agree to it partially. The judge shouldn't have dismissed the case just like that and should have set a process for implementing regulations.
May be the intention was to not to give bail to the scammer and thus he dismissed the petition itself or may be hew knew that there is already a process laid out for implementing regulations and so he might have dismissed the petition.
At the end, the scammer wasn't given the bail and that's the good thing.
As for the regulations, we will get those sooner or later and so we can wait in patience while the process is going on.