Applications for LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 are now open. Apply here. The last date for submitting applications is December 21, 2024
In July, a Committee set up by the Ministry of Finance to study issues related to virtual currencies, submitted its report. The Committee recommended that all private cryptocurrencies should be banned in India. Correspondingly, the Committee proposed a draft Bill banning cryptocurrency in the country. In this blog, we explain cryptocurrencies and how they are used, recommendations of the Committee with respect to cryptocurrencies and the regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies in India and other countries.
What are virtual currencies and what is their use?
Virtual currency is a digitally tradable form of value, which can be used as a medium of exchange, or a stored value which can be utilised later. It does not have the status of a legal tender. A legal tender is guaranteed by the central government and all parties are legally bound to accept it as a mode of payment.
Cryptocurrency is a specific type of virtual currency, which is decentralised and protected by cryptographic encryption techniques. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple are a few notable examples of cryptocurrencies. Decentralisation implies that there is no central authority where records of transactions are maintained. Instead, anyone can create a transaction. This transaction data is recorded and shared across multiple distributor networks, through independent computers as shown in Figure 1. This technology is known as Distributed Ledger Technology.
Figure 1: Distributed Ledger Technology
The Committee noted that there are two principal ways in which cryptocurrencies are raising money. First, through Initial Coin Offerings, where digital tokens are issued in exchange for other currencies. Second, through using it as a means of exchange or a payment system. As of February 2019, there were more than 2,000 cryptocurrencies across the world, with a market capitalisation of approximately USD 120 billion.
Why has the Committee recommended banning of cryptocurrencies?
The Committee noted various regulatory concerns around virtual currencies, and cryptocurrencies in particular. These include:
Fluctuation in prices: Cryptocurrencies are subjected to market fluctuations and the lack of a centralised authority makes it difficult to regulate them. For instance, in December 2017, the value of Bitcoin cryptocurrency was around USD 20,000 per coin, which reduced to USD 3,800 per coin by November 2018. The Ministry of Finance, in a press statement, noted that the price of virtual currencies is a matter of mere speculation resulting in spurt and volatility in their prices.
Risk to consumers: The Committee also noted that there are several vulnerabilities in the design of cryptocurrencies which leave consumers open to risk of fraud. These include phishing cyber-attacks and ponzi schemes. For instance, a Rs 2,000 crore ponzi scheme was unveiled in April 2018. Further, cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible, which means once a transaction is done, there is no way to remedy it.
Impact on power consumption: The Committee also observed that cryptocurrencies can have unfavourable consequences on India’s energy demand. Validating transactions in a distributed network involves high electricity consumption and requires high computation power. The Committee noted a study which estimated that 19 households in USA can be powered for one day by the electricity consumed in a single transaction of bitcoin cryptocurrency.
Potential use for criminal activity: The Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental organisation to combat money laundering, in its report (2014) observed that virtual currencies provide greater anonymity than traditional payment methods. This makes them more vulnerable to money-laundering and illicit funding for terror financing. The Committee noted that the decentralised nature and the anonymity which cryptocurrencies provide makes it difficult for law enforcement authorities to track down people involved in illicit activities.
Is there any country which has permitted use of cryptocurrencies?
Different countries have adopted different regulatory frameworks with respect to cryptocurrencies. Some countries have permitted the use of cryptocurrencies as a payment system while there is a complete ban on cryptocurrencies in some others. Note that no country has allowed use of any virtual currency as legal tender.
Table 1: Regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies in different countries
Country |
Regulatory Framework |
Canada |
Permitted as a payment system and as a form of investment, income from it is taxed |
Switzerland |
Permitted as a payment system (including consumer to government transactions) and as a form of investment |
Japan |
Permitted and regulated as a payment system |
China |
Use of cryptocurrency is banned for all purposes |
What are the present regulations in India with respect to cryptocurrencies?
In the last few years, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has notified the potential financial, operational, legal and security risks related to cryptocurrencies on multiple occasions (December 2013, February 2017 and December 2017). In December 2017, the Ministry of Finance issued a statement which clarified that virtual currencies are not legal tender and do not have any regulatory permission or protection in India. Further, the investors and participants dealing with them are doing so entirely at their risk and should best avoid participating. In the 2018-19 budget speech, the Finance Minister announced that the government does not consider cryptocurrencies as legal tender and will take all measures to eliminate their use in financing illegitimate activities or as a part of payment system. In April 2018, RBI notified that entities regulated by it should not deal in virtual currencies or provide services for facilitating any person or entity in dealing with or settling virtual currencies.
How does the draft Bill proposed by the Committee change these regulations?
Currently, only the entities regulated by the central bank are prohibited from dealing in, or providing services for dealing in virtual currencies. The draft Bill prohibits any form of mining (creating cryptocurrency), issuing, buying, holding, selling or dealing in cryptocurrency in the country. Further, it provides that cryptocurrency should not be used as legal tender or currency in India. The Bill allows for the use of technology or processes underlying cryptocurrency for the purpose of experiment, research or teaching.
The Bill also provides for offences and punishments for the contravention of its provisions. For instance, it states that mining, holding, selling, issuing or using cryptocurrency is punishable with a fine, or imprisonment up to 10 years, or both. For individuals who might be in possession of cryptocurrencies, the Bill provides for a transition period of 90 days from the commencement of the Act, during which a person may dispose of any cryptocurrency in their possession, as per the notified rules.
Are there any areas where the Committee recommended use of cryptocurrencies?
According to the Committee, while cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies do not offer any advantages, the underlying technology behind them (Distributed Ledger Technology, DLT) has many potential applications, both in finance and non-finance sectors. Some of these are listed in Table 2. The Committee observed that DLT makes it easier to identify duplicate transactions, and therefore can be utilised for fraud-detection, processing KYC requirements, and claim management for insurance. Further, it can be helpful for removing errors and frauds in land markets, if used for maintaining land records. The Committee was also of the view that the idea of an official digital currency in India can be explored further, and that the government may setup a group to examine and develop an appropriate model of digital currency in India.
Table 2: Applications of Distributed Ledger Technology
Sector |
Possible uses of DLT |
Payments |
Faster and cheaper cross-border payments Reduced transaction cost for micro-payments |
Identification |
Storing personal records such as birth, marriage or death certificates Removing duplicates in identification platforms such as KYC |
Insurance |
Fraud detection and risk prevention Claims prevention and management |
Ownership registries |
Removing errors and frauds in land markets Administrative ease of maintaining land records |
Trade Financing |
Reduced operational complexity and transaction costs |
The core group of secretaries on disinvestment has recently approved the disinvestment of five public sector undertakings (PSUs). This includes the entire shareholding of the government in four PSUs: Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL), Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) and THDC (operates and maintains the Tehri Hydro Power Complex), and 30% of the shareholding in Container Corporation of India Limited (Concor). The government currently holds 54.8% of Concor, so the sale will reduce its stake below 25%.
Over the last few years, the government has removed legislative barriers towards privatisation of several other PSUs. This raises the question whether the government plans to privatise them.
What was the Supreme Court’s order on privatisation of PSUs?
In 2003, a similar proposal had been raised by the government for the sale of its shareholding in HPCL and BPCL. This proposal was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it would violate the provisions of the laws that transferred ownership of certain assets to the government (which later formed these PSUs). For example, BPCL was formed by nationalising Burmah Shell in India through an Act of Parliament, and merging their refinery and marketing companies. The Court ruled that the central government cannot proceed with the privatisation of HPCL and BPCL (i.e., reduce its direct or indirect ownership below 51%) without amending the concerned laws. So the government continues to hold majority stake directly in BPCL, and indirectly in HPCL ( through ONGC, another PSU).
The five Companies approved for privatisation include BPCL and SCI (into which two nationalised companies, the Jayanti Shipping Company, and the Mogul Line Limited were merged). The relevant nationalisation Acts have been repealed over the last five years.
How did the government remove the legislative barriers for privatisation?
Between 2014 and 2019, Parliament passed six Repealing and Amending Acts which repealed around 722 laws. These included laws that had transferred the ownership of companies to the central government which later formed BPCL, HPCL, and OIL. These also repealed the laws that had transferred ownership of the companies to the central government which were later merged with the SCI. This implies that now the government can go ahead with the privatisation of these government companies as the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court’s order have been fulfilled. These Repealing and Amending Acts also repealed several other nationalisation laws that were later formed into PSUs. In the Table below, we have listed some of these companies. Note that the Law Commission of India (2014) had suggested the repeal of several of these laws (including the Esso Act, the Burmah Shell Act, the Burn Company Act) on the grounds that these laws do not serve any purpose with respect to the nationalised entity. However, it had suggested that a study of all the nationalisation Acts should be done before repealing these Acts, and if necessary a savings clause should be provided in the repealing Act.
Did Parliament scrutinise these Acts before passing them?
Many of these repeals were made through the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016. These include the Acts relating to BPCL, HPCL, OIL, Coal India Limited, SCI, National Textiles Corporation, Hindustan Copper and Burn Standard Company Limited. The Bill was not referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee, and was passed after a cursory debate (50 minutes in Lok Sabha and 20 minutes in Rajya Sabha). Similarly, the two Acts passed in 2017, that enable privatisation of SAIL, PowerGrid, and State Trading Corporation were not examined by a Standing Committee.
So what comes next?
The repeal of these Acts have cleared the legislative hurdle for privatisation of these companies. That is, the government does not need prior approval of Parliament to sell its shareholding. Therefore, it is now up to the government to decide whether it wishes to privatise these entities.
A version of this article was published by the Business Standard on October 20, 2019.
Table 1: Some Nationalisation Acts repealed since 2014 (list not exhaustive)
Company |
Act being repealed |
Repealing Act |
---|---|---|
Shipping Corporation Of India (SCI) |
The Jayanti Shipping Company (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1971 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Mogul Line Limited (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1984 |
||
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) |
The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) |
The Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Caltex [Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited] Act, 1977 |
||
The Kosangas Company (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1979 |
||
Coal India Limited (CIL) |
The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 |
||
The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
|
The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. |
||
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) |
The Bolani Ores Limited (Acquisition of Shares) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Indian Iron and Steel Company (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1976 |
||
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited |
The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited and the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems) Act, 1993. |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission System) Act, 1994. |
||
Oil India Limited (OIL) |
The Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited] Act, 1981 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) |
The Tea Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Sick Tea Units) Act, 1985 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2017 |
National Textile Corporation Limited (NTC) |
The Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 |
||
The Laxmirattan and Atherton West Cotton Mills (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1976 |
||
Hindustan Copper Limited |
The Indian Copper Corporation (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1972 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Burn Standard Co Ltd |
The Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalisation) Act, 1976 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Indian Railways |
The Futwah-Islampur Light Railway Line (Nationalisation) Act, 1985 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Braithwaite & Co Limited, Ministry of Railways |
The Braithwaite and Company (India) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1976. |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Gresham and Craven of India (Private) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977 |
||
Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. |
The Brentford Electric (India) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1987 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Transformers and Switchgear Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1983 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2019 |
|
Alcock Ashdown (Guj) Limited, Government of Gujarat Undertaking |
The Alcock Ashdown Company Limited (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1973. |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2019 |
Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (BCPL) |
The Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
Organisations under Department of Pharmaceuticals |
The Smith, Stainstreet and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984. |
Sources: Repealing and Amending Act, 2015; Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015; Repealing and Amending Act, 2016; Repealing and Amending Act, 2017; Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017; Repealing and Amending Act, 2019.