- Indian supreme court continued incomplete discussion on the crypto market.
- Mr. Sood further mentioned that RBI also said in its circulars about the different risks, which also include volatility.
- The Indian Central board of direct taxes (CBDT) version mentioned in the court hearing regarding the issue concerning the charge.
The incomplete discussion on the crypto market, which was postponed for 15th Jan by the Supreme Court, started again as indicated by Indian Cryptocurrency advocate, Crypto Kanoon, through his twitter handle.
#Live updates in #CryptoVsRBI case From Supreme Court of India
— Crypto Kanoon (@cryptokanoon) January 15, 2020
This coverage is powered by @Delta_Exchange
Delta Exchange Telegram: https://t.co/5uKwKnR9o8
Join https://t.co/Ok865as2s1 to trade #bitcoin and #altcoins with leverage. pic.twitter.com/0wojtkMOza
The court session started, the draft bill on Cryptocurrency submitted by the committee to the Indian Government reviewed by Mr. Sood, and he pointed out the drawbacks of the report.
Mr. Sood is reading out a report stating drawbacks of the draft bill recommended by the Committee to Indian Govt.
— Crypto Kanoon (@cryptokanoon) January 15, 2020
Security and exchange board of India prepared the report, pointing to the report, it claimed that the focus was entirely on customer interest while relying on a third party.
It is the report by SEBI. Mr. Sood gives a remark that the entire focus seems to be on a consumer interest while relying on a third party analysis.
— Crypto Kanoon (@cryptokanoon) January 15, 2020
Mr. Sood further mentioned that RBI also said in its circulars about the different risks, which also include volatility.
Mr. Sood submitted his arguments on this, compared it by taking stock trading as a point, as such chances are also involved under stock trading and effectively lies under the domain of SEBI and not RBI.
Mr. Sood says that RBI in its circulars mentioned about certain risks including volatility, however the the same is involved in stock trading also and effectively lies under the domain of SEBI and not RBI.
— Crypto Kanoon (@cryptokanoon) January 15, 2020
The Indian Central board of direct taxes (CBDT) version mentioned in the court hearing regarding the issue concerning the charge.
Every regulatory in the court is comparing crypto with their regulatory perspective as SEBI is concerned with the securities and volatility, and CBDT is concern regarding tax evasion.
Still, RBI, on the other side, yells consumer interest going totally outside their domain as a regulatory. And this can be acknowledged as the arbitrary.
Every regulator is looking at Crypto from their own regulatory perspective like SEBI is concerned about securities and volatility, CBDT is concerned about tax evasion but RBI cries consumer interest going totally outside their domain as a regulator. This is arbitrary.
— Crypto Kanoon (@cryptokanoon) January 15, 2020
It further presented in the court that RBI circle is wrong in law on three different perspectives:
1. Malice in law. Very few are aware of this aspect that RBI doesn’t have the power to ban, but RBI acted to ban crypto on effect.
2. Colorable exercise
3. Ultra vires- without authority
RBI circular is bad in law on three diff. aspects:
— Crypto Kanoon (@cryptokanoon) January 15, 2020
1. Malice in law. RBI doesn't have the power to ban but acted to ban Crypto on effect.
2. Colourable exercise
3. Ultra Vires – without authority.
Mr.sood also read out judgment on (2019 (9) SCC) with supporting the first aspect of his argument i.e., “Malice in law” and also gives another citation 1985 (3) SCC 1.
RBI said that it has no power over the commodity, which raised several questions among different perspectives, and the very first question is how the RBI exercise power to stop commodity form traded can.
Two other judgment, 1974 (2) SCC 687 and 2008 (4) SSC 144 announced. And the opinion cannot be formed on theoretical grounds. There must be an actual application of minds.
One more judgment 1987 (3) SCC 279 also announced in the court hearing. The judgment of 1987 (3) SCC 279 throws light on the method of interpretation of the statute. And no words of the law can be understood in isolation.
Steve Anderson is an Australian crypto enthusiast. He is a specialist in management and trading for over 5 years. Steve has worked as a crypto trader, he loves learning about decentralisation, understanding the true potential of the blockchain.