Odisha High Court Seeks Clarity on Cryptocurrency’s Legal Status Amid Bank Account Freezing Dispute
The Orissa High Court has sought detailed clarification on the legal standing of cryptocurrency in India while hearing petitions challenging the freezing of bank accounts linked to alleged digital asset transactions. Justice S.K. Panigrahi directed senior police officials to assist the court in explaining the regulatory framework governing virtual digital assets, blockchain platforms and related enforcement mechanisms. The case underscores ongoing ambiguity in India’s treatment of cryptocurrencies, particularly in matters involving cybercrime and financial investigations. The court also imposed Rs. 25,000 in costs on the state for repeated adjournments, emphasizing the urgency of legal clarity.
Background of the Petitions
The matter arose from four separate petitions filed in May 2025 after a subordinate court in Balangir rejected applications seeking de-freezing of bank accounts. The accounts had been seized following First Information Reports registered at the district’s cybercrime and economic offences police station.
The petitioners contend that their accounts were frozen in connection with alleged cryptocurrency transactions. They argue that the absence of a clear statutory prohibition renders the enforcement action legally questionable.
During proceedings, state counsel acknowledged difficulty in providing definitive assistance on whether cryptocurrency should be classified as legal, illegal or regulated under existing Indian law.
Judicial Concerns Over Regulatory Ambiguity
Justice Panigrahi observed that the issue before the court is not merely theoretical but has far-reaching consequences for cybercrime investigations, financial fraud cases and cross-border digital transactions.
The bench highlighted the absence of a comprehensive legislative framework explicitly declaring cryptocurrency either legal tender or a prohibited financial instrument. This regulatory gray area, the court noted, complicates enforcement actions and judicial scrutiny.
The court directed the Superintendent of Police of Balangir to appear in person on Feb. 26. Additionally, the nodal officer of the district cyber cell—or another qualified official familiar with blockchain technology, digital wallets and virtual digital asset regulations—was asked to assist the court.
Scope of Clarifications Sought
The officers have been instructed to apprise the court on several critical aspects:
The current legal status of cryptocurrency in India
Any statutory prohibition on possession or trading
The regulatory oversight framework governing virtual digital assets
Investigation and prosecution procedures for related offences
The intelligence basis underlying the FIRs in question
These directives reflect the court’s effort to establish whether enforcement actions were grounded in clear statutory authority or interpretive discretion.
Financial and Legal Implications
The freezing of bank accounts in cases involving digital assets raises complex questions about due process and financial rights. In the absence of explicit prohibition, the classification of cryptocurrency transactions can materially affect enforcement standards.
India has introduced taxation measures on virtual digital assets, including a flat 30 percent tax on gains and a 1 percent tax deducted at source on certain transactions. However, taxation does not automatically equate to full regulatory recognition or prohibition.
This duality—taxed but not formally recognized as legal tender—creates interpretive challenges for courts and investigative agencies alike.
Accountability and Procedural Discipline
In a notable development, the court directed the state government to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority as costs for repeated adjournments. The order signals judicial dissatisfaction with delays in addressing substantive legal questions.
Such procedural accountability underscores the judiciary’s insistence on timely and informed representation in matters involving evolving financial technologies.
Broader Regulatory Context
The Reserve Bank of India has historically expressed caution regarding private cryptocurrencies, citing concerns about monetary stability and consumer protection. At the same time, policymakers have explored the development of a central bank digital currency framework.
The absence of a codified and unified statutory regime specific to cryptocurrencies has left courts to interpret a patchwork of taxation rules, anti-money laundering provisions and cybercrime statutes.
Justice Panigrahi’s remarks indicate the need for a nuanced and technically informed understanding of blockchain ecosystems and digital asset platforms.
Conclusion
The proceedings before the Orissa High Court highlight a pivotal moment in India’s evolving cryptocurrency landscape. As digital assets increasingly intersect with financial crime investigations, regulatory ambiguity poses challenges for both enforcement agencies and citizens.
The court’s demand for clarity reflects a broader national conversation about how virtual digital assets should be treated within India’s legal architecture.
Whether cryptocurrency emerges as a fully regulated financial instrument, a restricted asset class or something in between will shape the trajectory of fintech innovation, compliance obligations and investor confidence in the years ahead.
About Author
