India’s Supreme Court Pushes Government to Finally Regulate Crypto—Before TradFi Banks Ruin It

India’s top court just dropped the regulatory hammer—urging the government to stop dragging its feet on crypto rules. No more ’wait-and-see’ while banks lobby to strangle decentralized finance in its crib.

Key takeaways:

- Judges want clarity: The court’s nudge comes after years of regulatory whiplash—from outright bans to uneasy tolerance.

- TradFi sweating: Local banks have been quietly lobbying for CBDCs to crush private crypto competition. This ruling throws a wrench in those plans.

- Bullish signal? Any regulation beats uncertainty. If India embraces crypto properly, it could onboard 1.4 billion people to Web3. Or they’ll bureaucratize it to death—this is finance, after all.

Bottom line: When even judges understand that ‘move fast and break things’ beats ‘move slowly and break economies,’ you know crypto’s gone mainstream. Now watch politicians somehow still mess this up.

Government says review may follow

The Additional Solicitor General of India — a senior legal officer representing the government of India — reportedly answered the request by saying that the government “will take instructions, my lord,” indicating that the government may consider reviewing the country’s current cryptocurrency regulation.

The report follows a May 5 hearing by the Supreme Court during which Kant and lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani shared their views on cryptocurrency. Jethmalani said that Bitcoin is already being used worldwide, noting that “in Europe, you can walk into a car showroom and buy a car using just one Bitcoin.”

While this scenario is not as common as this statement may suggest, buying a car with Bitcoin is possible at specialized sellers. The lawyer also showed that he misunderstood the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, claiming that he was from Japan:

“It was created by someone from Japan who used a fake name.”

Concerns over misuse

Kant also expressed concern over the misuse of cryptocurrencies. He said that “there is some system of rules that applies to this.”

Kant also said that “some Bitcoins are genuine, but some might not be.” However, it’s unclear whether he meant to suggest that counterfeit Bitcoin are in circulation (there are none) or that illegal activities taint some.

The latter appears likely since the statement was followed by the judge saying that “it has also become a possible way to do illegal business.”

India’s government has not yet introduced comprehensive legislation to govern cryptocurrencies, though it taxes gains and requires firms to report certain activities to financial regulators. The lack of regulation has drawn criticism from both the industry and policymakers amid the asset class’s continued growth.