Abstract

Publication Note: Originally published on Manupatra.

This article examines recent judicial developments concerning cryptocurrency disputes in India, with particular focus on the Delhi High Court's decisions in Rana Handa v. Bitbns Internet Private Limited & Ors. and Amit Ranjan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The article analyses the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the meaning of "State" under Article 12, the availability of alternative remedies, and the limits of judicial intervention in the absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrency exchanges. It examines the courts' treatment of disputes involving withdrawal restrictions, alleged financial losses and requests for regulatory intervention and CBI/SIT investigations. The article further considers the distinction between private commercial disputes and public law disputes, as well as the principle that courts cannot use mandamus to compel the legislature to create a regulatory framework. It also discusses the evolving regulatory approach towards virtual currencies and the continuing challenges surrounding investor protection and cryptocurrency regulation in India.