You may have already heard of the “crypto ban”, which is currently happening in India. Crypto exchanges from the country are banned from having banking accounts and now even people that hold crypto are losing their accounts in the country.
In the middle of all these issues, a lawyer representing the Internet Mobile Association of India is petitioning against the Reserve Bank of India’s ban. The lawyer, Jaideep Reddy, works for the IAMAI on behalf of Nishith Desai Associates
The ban happened on April 6, 2018, and no financial company under the regulation of the bank could provide services to crypto companies. Reddy argues that the matter was heard for a reasonable amount of time and now he is interested in hearing the decision from the Supreme Court.
He also argues that the companies are almost bankrupt and that they cannot wait for deliberations made by the government. They need to know the final result of the decision quickly. Petitioners are pressing the RBI and noting that the court needs to decide soon whether the law is valid or if it is not.
The Case Is Set To End By February
The good news is that this case is set to be properly finished by February 2019. The next hearing of the Supreme Court will be then and, after that, the judges will decide the future of cryptos in India. A new hearing will be made at the end of February.
At the moment, the lawyer which is on the case is confident that there is a good chance that the Supreme Court of India will hear the pleas of the entrepreneurs and crypto enthusiasts in the country and let the ban end for once and for all.
Several petitions were filed against the RBI crypto ban and at least five of them are currently pending at the moment. From the other petitions which are not the ones that Reddy is working on, three currently challenge the validity of the law in the face of the Constitution and two of them are public interest litigations.
He has explained, though, that the petition led by the IAMAI only challenges the RBI circular, unlike these other ones.
At the moment, the government of India has filed for a counter-affidavit with the Supreme Court responding to the petition. The government and RBI cite many concerns linked to cryptocurrency assets and affirm that this is reason enough for the temporary ban.
The lawyer has answered to the counter-affidavit and filed a rejoinder on behalf of its client for each of the points presented by the government and the bank. The main argument here is that it is simply not enough to say that cryptos have risks and use a full banking embargo because they may have risks.
According to him, cryptos can have several benefits and they are essential for the blockchain technology to be successful in the country. Because of this, it is a complete exaggeration for such a large embargo. The constitution, the lawyer affirms, requires that any kind of restriction should be reasonable and this is not.
The lawyer also affirmed that the government has also filed other counter-affidavits for the other petitions at the time.