The rumblings from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are threatening since 2013 for Bitcoin investors. The banking regulator has issued four alerts against Bitcoin (BTC) and other digital currencies since December 2013, the last few unequivocally calling it a Ponzi scheme.
Stock market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has put forth a preventative statement on the digital currency. It all fuelled up when to its height when Arun Jaitley made an unexpected declaration in Budget 2018: “Bitcoins will not be considered lawful or legal tender in India.”
‘Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies’, mandated banks, e-wallets, and payment gateway providers to withdraw support for cryptocurrency exchanges and other businesses dealing with VCs in India.
In India, Bitcoin has displayed one of the trickiest regulatory difficulties as of late. Investors and millennials are cherishing it notwithstanding regulatory alerts. This is making RBI jumpy. What’s more, government stays careful about its avatar as its acknowledges blockchain yet maintains a strategic distance from bitcoins.
This is plainly a memorable tussle between the principals of a free market and the general expectation of regulatory oversight which currently is the court of the Apex Court of the nation that is scheduled for hearing on July 20. The case that looked feeble for the cryptos to get by in this nation has all of a suddenly discovered accomplishment after these disclosures.
Likewise, the absence of legitimate stakeholder consultation and the nonappearance of reasonable grounds to limit any business are the essential provisions under which the RBI notice is challenged in the Supreme Court.
A Lawyer named Rashmi Deshpande from Khaitan & Co represents one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court was quoted
“This RBI response has cemented our case ahead of the hearing in SC. The grounds on which our writ petition has been filed is that the RBI has not done enough research to ban a business completely,”
Experts say petitioners will likely try to use this response to demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court, how RBI’s decision did not lay basis on credible or neutral evidence of harm. This may affect the constitutionality of the RBI’s guidance.