THE CRYPTOCURRENCY

AND REGULATION OF OFFICIAL DIGITAL CURRENCY

ACT, 2021 (“CRYPTO ACT”)

ISSUES

1. Whether the outright ban imposed by the Indusian government is reasonable?

2. Whether ‘The Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Act, 2021
(“Crypto Act”) Violates Article 14 of the Indusian Constitution?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The petitioner, in 2015 started investing in cryptocurrencies and was effectively able to
double his earnings every year. Moving on to year 2021, on Dec 31st the Indus
Legislature passed the Crypto Act, banning trading in cryptocurrency. The Act, provided
that that “no person shall mine, generate, hold, sell, deal in, issue, transfer, dispose of or
use Cryptocurrency in the territory of Indus, unless otherwise expressly permitted by any
provision of law”. Anyone found engaging in the same shall be penalized. The main
reason cited by the President of Indus for banning Cryptocurrency was to do away with
the illegal and illicit activities, through cryptos, which has been mostly successful because
by June 2022, and almost half of their estimated members were captured by Indus
government.

In September, 2022 the Indus Govt, released a notification introducing its own crypto
exchange – Indusians, where any cryptocurrency could be traded, restricting trading only
to citizens of Indus. In the light of this decision all foreign exchanges came together and
released a bulleting that they won’t be dealing with Indusians as it did not value
anonymity.

The petitioners right to trade was infringed and the reasons given by the govt was not
justifiable. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the Government,
 has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and files the present Writ Petition under
Article 32

ORAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

THE COUNSEL SEEKS PERMISSION TO APPROACH THE DIAS
- MUCH OBLIGED
MAY IT PLEASE THE HONOURABLE COURT APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER AS YOUR LORDSHIP
- MUCH OBLIGED
- MAY THE COUNSEL PROCEED WITH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the outright ban imposed by the Indusian government is reasonable?
the outright ban imposed by the indusian government is not reasonable. The Act seeks to
prohibit mining, holding, selling, trade, issuance, disposal or use of cryptocurrency in the
country. 
Article 19 (1) (g) states to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business. Sub-clause (g) of Article 19 (1) confers a general and a vast right
available to all persons to do any particular type of business of their choice. But this
does not confer the right to do anything consider illegal in eyes of law. Further Article
19(1) (g) does not mean that conditions can be created by the state or any statutory
body so as to make any trade unlawful without any reasonable cause. It is humbly
submitted that the term ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes that the limitation imposed
upon a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature, beyond what is required in the interest of the public. It was held by the
Hon’ble High court in the case of Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118
that where a legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be
said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it strikes a proper balance between
the freedom guaranteed in Art.19 (1)(2) and the social control permitted by clause (6)
of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.
Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that in order to determine the reasonableness of
the restriction, regard must be had to the nature of the business and conditions
prevailing in that trade. The impugned Act does not impose reasonable restrictions on
the fundamental right to engage in business, in the interest of general public but
totally negatives it.
Therefore, the Petitioner contends that instead the Indusian government should focus
on regularising the crypto market by imposing reasonable but not arbitrary
restrictions.