The Bombay High Court has requested an update from the Centre on the planned cryptocurrency bill
The PIL, filed by Mumbai-based lawyer Aditya Pratap Kadam, says that cryptocurrency trading poses a "imminent threat" of an increase in money-laundering cases, illicit drug trade, and terror financing.
The Bombay High Court on Monday ordered the Centre to submit an update on cryptocurrency legislation, which it claims would be introduced during Parliament’s Winter Session.
While hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions from the Centre to adopt a cryptocurrency regulation in the country, a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik issued the directives.
According to the PIL, which was filed by Mumbai-based lawyer Aditya Pratap Kadam, there is a “imminent threat” of an increase in money-laundering cases, illicit drug trafficking, and terror financing through cryptocurrency trading, which the authorities have “failed to stop.”
In his plea, Kadam asked the courts to help him draught suitable legislation and guidelines to protect citizens’ interests, among other things. The Union government, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Securities Exchange Board of India are all cited as parties in the PIL.
The suit, according to Kadam, was submitted to draw attention to the “underlying flaws and unmanaged, unchecked trades and malpractices” in India’s cryptocurrency trading.
The central government’s advocate, D P Singh, told the bench that the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021, will be discussed during Parliament’s Winter Session, which began on Monday.
The bill intends to build a framework that will make it easier for the Reserve Bank of India to launch an official digital currency.
With some exclusions, the bill intends to outlaw all private cryptocurrencies in India in order to encourage the underlying cryptocurrency technology and its applications.
The petitioner claims that the Centre made a similar declaration in 2018 that it would consider adopting a bill, but that no action was taken.
While requesting an update on the bill, the court stated that it will consider the plea later and that the petitioner’s assertions that the Centre is taking no action are false.
The matter was adjourned to January 17, 2022, by the bench.
