Court dismisses appeal, directs appellants to seek civil or consumer remedies for disputes with BitBNS platform.
In a significant judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Amit Ranjan and others, affirming that private cryptocurrency exchanges are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, reiterated that disputes involving fund mismanagement, cyber incidents, and compensation claims are private law matters, urging affected parties to pursue civil or consumer remedies.
The appeal was filed against an earlier judgment related to a writ petition where appellants sought regulatory intervention and investigation into alleged cyber incidents and fund mismanagement by BitBNS, a cryptocurrency exchange platform. The appellants argued that the issues raised pertained to public law due to the regulatory oversight and systemic failure affecting numerous investors across the country. They sought directions from the court to mandate regulatory bodies like SEBI and the RBI to establish a framework for cryptocurrency exchanges and demanded a probe by a Special Investigation Team under the CBI.
However, the Delhi High Court upheld the single judge's decision, emphasizing that the disputes were rooted in private transactions between individuals and the cryptocurrency platform, BitBNS. The court noted that Respondent Nos. 11 to 13, who operate BitBNS, are private entities not amenable to writ jurisdiction since they do not fall under the definition of 'State' or instrumentalities of the State. The court further clarified that taxation of Virtual Digital Assets under the Finance Act, 2022, does not subject these private exchanges to public law scrutiny under Article 226.
The judgment also highlighted that the mere impact on a large number of investors does not transform the dispute into one involving enforceable public law rights. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, the court reiterated that cryptocurrency exchanges operate in a private domain despite their interaction with regulated banking channels.
Additionally, the court found no exceptional circumstances warranting an investigation by the CBI or an SIT, and asserted that such investigations and regulatory policy directions cannot be pursued through writ jurisdiction. The appellants were advised to seek relief through civil courts or consumer fora, where disputed questions of fact, such as the alleged fraud and mismanagement, can be adequately examined.
This judgment aligns with a previous decision in Rana Handa v. BitBNS Internet Pvt. Ltd., where similar claims were directed to be pursued through appropriate forums rather than writ proceedings. The court assured appellants that alternative remedies remain available, with a collective criminal complaint already filed on the National Cyber Crime Portal.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that private law disputes over cryptocurrency exchanges require factual determination and evidence, which are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Bottom line:-
Cryptocurrency exchanges and private law disputes-Private entities operating cryptocurrency exchanges are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Disputes regarding fund management, cyber incidents, and compensation claims arising from private cryptocurrency exchanges cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction, especially when factual determinations and evidence are required. Appellants are not remediless and may seek appropriate civil or consumer remedies.
Statutory provision(s): Article 12, Article 14, Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Finance Act, 2022
Amit Ranjan v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2936506
