The Supreme Court of India recently decided not to consider a public interest litigation (PIL) focused on establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrency trading within the country. This decision underlines the legal intricacies and complexities surrounding the burgeoning field of digital currencies in India.
The Supreme Court's position on cryptocurrency regulation
The importance of the matter tour around a PIL that sought to introduce structured regulations and guidelines for cryptocurrency trading. However, the Supreme Court did not accept the PIL. The court, headed by the Chief Justice of India, emphasized that the petition appeared to lean more toward legislative rather than judicial action. This distinction is crucial to understanding the court's decision.
Recognizing that the judicial and the legislature operate in different areas is essential. The Supreme Court, in its observation, noted that the petitioner's demands were predominantly legislative. Therefore, promulgating such guidelines falls outside the jurisdiction of the court, as this responsibility lies with the legislative branch.
The background of the petitioner, Manu Prashant Wig, adds a layer of complexity to the situation. Currently in the custody of the Delhi Police, Wig is involved in a cryptocurrency-related case. This case, initiated by the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police, dates back to 2020. It involves allegations of duping people into invest in cryptocurrencies with the promise of high returns.
The Role of Blue Fox Motion Picture Limited
Wig's involvement with Blue Fox Motion Picture Limited, where he worked as a director, is a central point of the case. He is accused of luring investors to invest their money in digital currencies. Unfortunately, several people reported their complaints to the EOW, highlighting the risks associated with unregulated cryptocurrency investments.
Follow CryptoMode on Google news, x, Youtube and Tik Tok for news updates! Despite the rejection of the PIL by the Supreme Court, the court left options to the petitioner. It allowed Wig, who was seeking release from judicial custody, to seek legal remedies through other relevant authorities. This decision opens the door to following different legal avenues.
Advice for the petitioner: explore alternative legal avenues
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India suggested that the petitioner could approach a different court for bail. This advice is important as it guides the petitioner towards a judicial platform more appropriate for his immediate concerns, especially when he seeks bail.
The court's reluctance to delve into cryptocurrency The regulation is rooted in its understanding of the separation of powers. As the court noted, such policymaking falls squarely within the legislative purview. The legislature, not the judiciary, is equipped to create and implement comprehensive regulation for digital currencies.
The decision of the Supreme Court of India not to intervene in the regulation of cryptocurrencies is reminiscent of the different roles of the judiciary and the legislature. While the court recognizes the importance of such regulations, it maintains that creating these guidelines is a legislative task.
