Amit Ranjan & Ors. vs Union Of India And Others

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.07.2026
+ LPA 393/2026 & CM APPL. 34470/2026
AMIT RANJAN & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Dinesh Jotwani, Advocate, Mr.
Syed Adil Muneer, AOR and Ms.
Sharanya Tripathi, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms.
Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Arpan Narwal
and Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advocates
for UoI.
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Dipan
Sethi and Mr. Snehashish
Bhattacharya, Advocates for R-3.
Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, SPP with
Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay, Advocate
for R-9 (CBI).
Mr. Rohan Kothari and Ms. Shivani
Pegatraju, Advocates for R-11 to R-
13.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
CM APPL. 34471/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay of 59 days in re-
filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

2. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 393/2026
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the
judgment and order dated 11.02.2026 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed in
W.P.(C) 197/2025 titled as ‘ Aditya Malhotra & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. ’ (“ Writ Petition ”), whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of, inter
alia , by placing reliance upon the decision in Rana Handa v. BitBNS
Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1446, and by
granting liberty to the Appellants to approach the appropriate forum(s) for
adjudication of their grievances pertaining to Prayer Nos. 4 and 5 of the Writ
Petition.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are hereunder:
4.1. The Appellants are stated to be users of the cryptocurrency
exchange platform ‘BitBNS’, which is operated by Respondent
No. 11 and was co-founded by Respondent Nos. 12 and 13.
4.2. The Reserve Bank of India (“ RBI ”) issued a circular dated
06.04.2018 (“ Circular ”), whereby regulated entities were
prohibited from dealing in, or providing services in relation to,
virtual currencies. Subsequently, on 04.03.2020, the Supreme
Court, in Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve
Bank of India , Neutral Citation: 2020 INSC 264, set aside the
Circular, thereby restoring the ability of cryptocurrency
exchanges to access banking channels.
4.3. Thereafter, the Finance Act, 2022 (“ Finance Act ”) introduced
taxation regime in respect of Virtual Digital Assets (“ VDAs ”),
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

including provisions relating to taxation of income arising from
their transfer and deduction of tax at source.
4.4. A public statement dated 01.02.2022 (“ Public Statement ”) was
issued by BitBNS in relation to a reported cyber incident
affecting the platform. Thereafter, users were permitted to
withdraw wallet balances, subject to a limit of ₹5,000/- per day.
A collective criminal complaint dated 06.09.2024 was
subsequently filed by the affected users on the National Cyber
Crime Portal.
4.5. Thereafter, the Appellants instituted the Writ Petition seeking,
inter alia , the following reliefs:
“ 1. Mandate the SEBI (response), Union of India,
Ministry of Finance; Reserve Bank of India and the
Ministry of Electronics and IT to implement a
regulatory framework and policies regulate
cryptocurrency exchanges and transactions to ensure
investor protection.
2. Direct the constitution of a Special Investigation
Team (SIT) under the Central Bureau Of Investigation
(CBI) (Respondent No. 9 ) to register a FIR and
investigate thoroughly the financial fraud, cyberattack,
fund mismanagement and operational lapses at
BitBNS.
3. Direct any of the Government Agencies (Respondent
No. 1 to 4, 6-8) to conduct a thorough investigation
into the offences alleged to have been committed on
Petitioners and other investors.
4. Direct Respondent No. 11, 12 and 13 to immediately
release the funds of Petitioners and Victims and lift the
withdrawal restrictions and start express INR
withdrawal.
5. Award compensation to all affected petitioners and
users who have suffered financial losses due to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

mismanagement and fraudulent activities by
Respondent no. 12 and Respondent no. 13. ”
4.6. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the Writ Petition, holding, inter alia , that the
dispute essentially arose out of private law transactions and that
Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 were not ‘State’ within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950
(“ Constitution ”) and, therefore, no exceptional circumstances
had been made out warranting a direction for investigation by
the Central Bureau of Investigation (“ CBI ”) or a Special
Investigation Team (“ SIT ”). The Impugned Judgement also
granted liberty to the Appellants to avail of such alternative
remedies as may be available to them in law.
4.7. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have preferred the present
Appeal.
5. Mr. Dinesh Jotwani, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted
that:
5.1. The learned Single Judge erred in treating the controversy as a
purely private dispute, without appreciating that the Writ
Petition squarely raised issues pertaining to regulatory inaction,
statutory oversight, and systemic failure affecting a substantial
number of investors across the country, thereby disclosing clear
public law elements warranting examination under Article 226
of the Constitution.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

5.2. The learned Single Judge further erred in holding that
Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 were not amenable to writ
jurisdiction, without examining whether entities operating in a
financial domain involving public funds, interfacing with
regulated banking channels, and affecting a large class of
investors would attract public law scrutiny by reason of the
nature of their functions.
5.3. The Impugned Judgment erred in observing that no exceptional
circumstances had been made out for directing an investigation
by the CBI or an SIT, without duly appreciating the facts
relating to the large-scale impact on investors, the alleged cyber
incident, possible fund mismanagement, and complaints lodged
across the country, all of which indicated systemic
ramifications.
5.4. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that VDAs have
been statutorily recognised under the Finance Act and are
subject to taxation, deduction of tax at source, and anti-money
laundering obligations. Cryptocurrency exchanges, therefore,
operate within a regulated financial framework attracting public
law scrutiny, and that regulatory inaction despite statutory
recognition of the sector violates the constitutional guarantees
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The grievance,
accordingly, was directed against regulatory inaction and not
merely against private entities.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

5.5. In the facts of the present case, a direction for investigation by a
specialised central agency was warranted, having regard to the
scale, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional nature of the alleged
irregularities.
5.6. The learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance upon Rana
Handa ( supra ) without independently examining the distinct
constitutional and regulatory issues raised in the Writ Petition.
6. Mr. Rohan Kothari, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 11 to 13
submitted that:
6.1. The dispute, in substance, arises out of transactions between
individual investors and a private cryptocurrency exchange and
is, therefore, governed by private law. Respondent Nos. 11 to
13 are private entities and do not fall within the definition of
‘State’ or instrumentalities of the State under Article 12 of the
Constitution.
6.2. The issues raised in the Writ Petition substantially overlap with
those adjudicated in Rana Handa ( supra ), and the learned
Single Judge was justified in relying upon the said decision
while disposing of the Writ Petition. The allegations of fraud
and financial irregularities involve disputed questions of fact
which would require appreciation of evidence and, therefore,
cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
6.3. No exceptional circumstances exist warranting a direction for
investigation by the CBI or an SIT. The reliefs seeking
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

regulatory policy directions and investigation are beyond the
scope of writ jurisdiction and are not amenable to adjudication
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and have perused the
material placed on record. The dispute, in essence, has been between a set of
individual customers and a private cryptocurrency exchange in relation to a
cyber incident, withdrawal restrictions, and alleged fund mismanagement.
8. The controversy is, therefore, in nature of a private commercial
dispute. The mere fact that a large number of investors may have been
affected does not, by itself, transform the dispute into one involving
enforceable public law rights. Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 are private entities,
neither created, financed, nor controlled by the State or instrumentalities of
the State. Further, the taxation of VDAs under the Finance Act does not
render such entities ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution, nor does it, by itself, subject them to public law scrutiny.
Hence, no case has been made out for directing an investigation by the CBI
or an SIT.
9. The dispute in the present case, involving the same platform and the
same Public Statement, was considered in Rana Handa ( supra ), wherein
this Court held that, in the absence of a specific regulatory statute governing
such exchanges, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely on the ground
that a large number of investors are affected.
10. We are in complete agreement with the said view and find no reason
to take a different view in the present matter. Prayer No. 4 seeks release of
the Appellants’ funds and lifting of withdrawal restrictions. Grant of such
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

relief would require a factual determination as to the amount, if any, actually
standing to the credit of each individual investor, and to further examine
whether the restrictions imposed after the Public Statement were in the
nature of a protective measure or constituted mismanagement. These are
disputed questions of fact which are not amenable to adjudication in writ
proceedings.
11. Prayer No. 5 seeks compensation for losses allegedly occasioned by
fraud and mismanagement on the part of Respondent Nos. 12 and 13.
Adjudication of this relief would necessarily require proof of the cause of
loss, determination of culpability of the persons concerned, and
quantification of the amount payable, if any, to each investor. Such issues
again require evidence and trial and cannot be determined summarily in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. Both the aforesaid reliefs were considered, on substantially identical
facts involving the same platform and the same Public Statement, in Rana
Handa ( supra ), wherein it was held that such monetary claims are required
to be pursued before a Civil Court or any other competent forum. We,
therefore, find no ground to distinguish the present case on facts.
13. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed in the Impugned
Judgment that the Appellants are not without remedy. A collective criminal
complaint already stands filed on the National Cyber Crime Portal, and
remedies for recovery of funds and compensation remain available before
the appropriate Civil Courts or consumer fora. The liberty granted by the
learned Single Judge to pursue such remedies adequately safeguards the
rights of the Appellants and does not foreclose their claims. We are,
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41

therefore, of the view that the Appellants cannot be said to be remediless,
particularly in view of the pending criminal complaint and the availability of
civil and / or consumer remedies.
14. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment, as the
Appellants have failed to make out any ground to distinguish the facts in
Rana Handa ( supra ) or to warrant issuance of a regulatory mandamus , or
grant the prayer for release of funds / compensation in writ proceedings.
Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed, and the pending Application also
stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
JULY 2, 2026
N
Signature Not Verified
LPA 393/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.07.2026
19:10:41