RBI Argues Supreme Court Should Not Interfere With Its Crypto Decision

The Reserve Bank of India has filed an affidavit with the country’s supreme court in response to one of the petitions against its crypto banking ban. The central bank reportedly argues that it has acted within its power and that none of the petitioners have shown reasonable grounds for the supreme court to intervene.

                                             No Reasonable Grounds

Last week, the Supreme Court of India was scheduled to hear all of the petitions against the crypto banking ban by the country’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India. However, the case was postponed the second week in a row from the original hearing date of Sept. 11. According to industry participants, the court is now scheduled to hear the case on Sept. 25.

In response to a petition filed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), the central bank filed an affidavit with the supreme court on Sept. 8, Inc42 reported on Sept. 21. “Inc42 has the copy of the petition filed by IAMAI as well as the response filed by RBI on September 8, 2018.”

In its affidavit, the central bank argues that the IAMAI petition, along with other petitions challenging its ban, “is not maintainable either in law or on facts and, hence, liable to be dismissed as such,” the publication noted.

Since the RBI issued its April 6 circular banning banks from providing services to crypto businesses, a number of petitions have been filed against the ban. They allege that the central bank’s action “violates Articles 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Indian Constitution,” which “will lead to the closure” of affected firms, the news outlet explained. However, the RBI detailed in its affidavit:

RBI’s response further reads, “There is no statutory right, much less an infringed one, available to the petitioner to open and maintain bank accounts to trade, invest or deal in virtual currencies.” In addition, the central bank claims that IAMAI and others “haven’t got any reasonable or tenable ground for interference by this court.”