Indian Court Rejects Crypto Investors’ Plea for Action Against Bitbns

Court says private crypto exchanges fall outside writ powers, pushing investors to civil and criminal legal routes.

India’s crypto dispute over Bitbns has taken a decisive legal turn. Delhi High Court declined to intervene in investor complaints seeking a CBI probe and fund recovery. Judges ruled that constitutional remedies cannot be used against a private exchange.

Delhi Bench Rejects Demand for CBI Action in Bitbns Case

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed a batch of petitions filed by investors, including Rana Handa and Aditya Malhotra. Investors had asked the court to tighten oversight of crypto exchanges and order a CBI investigation into Bitbns. They also sought the release of funds they claim have been stuck on the exchange.

The court held that Bitbns is a private company and does not fall within the court’s writ jurisdiction. Judges clarified that the exchange is not a “State” entity under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Because of that classification, it cannot be targeted through writ petitions under Article 226. Bench added that Bitbns does not perform any public function that would justify constitutional intervention.

Judges declined to order a CBI or Special Investigation Team probe. Such investigations, they said, are reserved for rare and serious cases. Notably, Supreme Court rulings require strong grounds before a central agency can be directed to act. In some complaints mentioned, the police had not even filed a First Information Report.

On crypto regulation, the bench made clear that lawmaking is not a judicial function. Responsibility lies with Parliament and financial regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Without a specific law in place, courts cannot step in.

Court Advises Users to Seek Relief Through FIRs and Civil Suits

Users have been complaining about Bitbns for a long time. Some investors claim they have not been able to withdraw their money since 2025. Rana Handa told the court he invested around ₹14.22 lakh from 2021 but later faced limits that stopped him from accessing his funds.

Other users said the exchange suddenly placed withdrawal limits on their accounts. Some also claimed their account balances looked lower than they expected. Because of these issues, affected investors first filed complaints on the National Cyber Crime Portal and later filed a petition in the Delhi High Court.

Investors wanted quick help from the High Court, but that did not happen. Judges told them to use other legal options instead. Investors who suspect fraud or criminal breach of trust may file FIRs with local police. Local courts can hear disputes against private companies like Bitbns.

Legal experts say the decision follows basic constitutional rules. High courts usually use writ powers only against government bodies or public authorities. Private companies normally do not fall under that category unless they perform official state functions.

The case also highlights India’s unresolved crypto policy. Because of that gap, disputes between exchanges and users often fall into a grey area. As a result, investors may face slow and complex legal processes when seeking solutions.

Until Parliament enacts specific crypto laws, disputes between exchanges and users may continue to be litigated in traditional civil and criminal courts. The decision signals clear limits on judicial reach in India’s evolving digital asset sector.