#FactCheck-RBI's Alleged Guidelines on Ink Colour for Cheque Writing

According to Statista, the number of users in India's digital assets market is expected to reach 107.30m users by 2025 (Impacts of Inflation on Financial Markets, August 2023). India's digital asset market has been experiencing exponential growth fueled by the increased adoption of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. This furthers the need for its regulation. Digital assets include cryptocurrencies, NFTs, asset-backed tokens, and tokenised real estate. 

India has defined Digital Assets under Section 47(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Finance Act 2022-23 has added the word 'virtual' to make it “Virtual Digital Assets”. A “virtual digital asset” is any information or code, number, or token, created through cryptographic methods or otherwise, by any name, giving a digital representation of value exchanged with or without consideration. A VDA should contain an inherent value and represent a store of value or unit of account, functional in any financial transaction or investment. These can be stored,  transferred, or traded in electronic format. 

Digital Asset Governance: Update and Future Outlook

Indian regulators have been conservative in their approach towards digital assets, with the Reserve Bank of India first issuing directions against cryptocurrency transactions in 2018. This ban was removed by the Supreme Court through a court order in 2020. The presentation of the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill of 2021 is a fairly important milestone in its attempts to lay down the framework for issuing an official digital currency by the Reserve Bank of India. While some digital assets seem to have potential, like the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and blockchain-based financial applications, a blanket prohibition has been enforced on private cryptocurrencies.

However, in more recent trends, the landscape is changing as the RBI's CBDC is to provide a state-backed digital alternative to cash under a more structured regulatory framework. This move seeks to balance state control with innovation on investor safety and compliance, expecting to reduce risk and enhance security for investors by enacting strict anti-money laundering and know-your-customer laws. Highlighting these developments is important to examine how global regulatory trends influence India's digital asset policies.

Impact of Global Development on India’s Approach 

Global regulatory developments have an impact on Indian policies on digital assets. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) is to introduce a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies that could act as an inspiration for India. MiCA regulation covers crypto-assets that are not currently regulated by existing financial services legislation. Its particular focus on consumer protection and market integrity resonates with India in terms of investigating needs related to digital assets, including fraud and price volatility. Additionally, evolving policies in the US, such as regulating crypto exchanges and classifying certain tokens as securities, could also form the basis for India's regulatory posture.

Collaboration on the international level is also a chief contributing factor. India’s regular participation in global forums like the G20, facilitates an opportunity to align its regulations on digital assets with other countries, tending toward an even more standardised and predictable framework for cross-border transactions. This can significantly help India given that the nation  has a huge diaspora providing a critical inflow of remuneration.

CyberPeace Outlook

Though digital assets offer many opportunities to India, challenges also exist. Cryptocurrency volatility affects investors, posing concerns over fraud and illicit dealings. A balance between the need for innovation and investor protection is paramount to avoid killing the growth of India's digital asset ecosystem with overly restrictive regulations.

Financial inclusion, efficient cross-border payments with low transaction costs, and the opening of investment opportunities are a few opportunities offered by digital assets. For example, the tokenisation of real estate throws open real estate investment to smaller investors. To strengthen the opportunities while addressing challenges, some policy reforms and new frameworks might prove beneficial. 

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

• Establish a regulatory sandbox for startups working in the area of blockchain and digital assets. This would allow them to test innovative solutions in a controlled environment with regulatory oversight minimising risks.
• Clear guidelines for the taxation of digital assets should be provided as they will ensure transparency, reduce ambiguity for investors, and promote compliance with tax regulations. Specific guidelines can be drawn from the EU's MiCA regulation.  
• Workshops, online resources, and campaigns are some examples of initiatives aimed at improving consumer awareness about digital assets, benefits and associated risks that should be implemented. Partnerships with global fintech firms will provide a great opportunity  to learn best practices.

Conclusion

India is positioned at a critical juncture with respect to the debate on digital assets. The challenge which lies ahead is one of balancing innovation with effective regulation. The introduction of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and the development of new policies signal a willingness on the part of the regulators to embrace the digital future. In contrast, issues like volatility, fraud, and regulatory compliance continue to pose hurdles. By drawing insights from global frameworks and strengthening ties through international forums, India can pave the way for a secure and dynamic digital asset ecosystem. Embracing strategic measures such as regulatory sandboxes and transparent tax guidelines will not only protect investors but also unlock the immense potential of digital assets, propelling India into a new era of financial innovation and inclusivity.

References

• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/different-countries-navigating-uncertainty-digital-asset-regulation-election-year/ 
• https://www.acfcs.org/eu-passes-landmark-crypto-regulation 
• https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2022-23/doc/Finance_Bill.pdf 
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/10/different-countries-navigating-uncertainty-digital-asset-regulation-election-year/
• https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Digital_Assets_Regulation_2024.pdf 

‍

Introduction

‍

India’s new Policy for Data Sharing from the National Transport Repository (NTR) released by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) in August, 2025, can be seen as a constitutional turning point and a milestone in administrative efficiency. The state has established an unprecedentedly large unified infrastructure by combining the records of 390 million vehicles, 220 million driver’s licenses, and the streams from the e-challan, e-DAR, and FASTag systems. Its supporters hail its promise of private-sector innovation, data-driven research, and smooth governance. However, there is a troubling paradox beneath this facade of advancement: the very structures intended to improve citizen mobility may simultaneously strengthen widespread surveillance. Without strict protections, the NTR runs the risk of violating the constitutional trifecta of need, proportionality, and legality as stated in Puttaswamy v. UOI, which brings to light important issues at the nexus of liberty, law, and data.  

The other pertinent question to be addressed is as India unifies one of its comprehensive datasets on citizen mobility the question becomes more pressing: while motorised citizens are now in the spotlight for accountability, what about the millions of other datasets that are still dispersed, unregulated, and shared inconsistently in the areas of health, education, telecom, and welfare?

‍

The Legal Backdrop

‍

MoRTH grounds its new policy in Sections 25A and 62B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Data is consolidated into a single repository since states are required by Section 136A to electronically monitor road safety. According to the policy, it complies with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. 

The DPDP Act itself, however, is rife with state exclusions, particularly Sections 7 and 17, which give government organisations access to personal information for “any function under any law” or for law enforcement purposes. This is where the constitutional issue lies. Prior judicial supervision, warrants, or independent checks are not necessary. With legislative approval, MoRTH is essentially creating a national vehicle database without any constitutional protections. 

‍

Data, Domination and the New Privacy Paradigm

‍

As an efficiency and governance reform, VAHAN, SARATHI, e-challan, eDAR, and FASTag are being consolidated into a single National Transport Repository (NTR). However, centralising extensive mobility and identity-linked records on a large scale is more than just a technical advancement; it also changes how the state and private life interact. The NTR must therefore be interpreted through a more comprehensive privacy paradigm, one that acknowledges that data aggregation is a means of enhancing administrative capacity and has the potential to develop into a long-lasting tool of social control and surveillance unless both technological and constitutional restrictions are placed at the same time. 

‍

Two recent doctrinal developments sharpen this concern. First, the Supreme Court’s foundational ruling that privacy is a fundamental right remains the constitutional lodestar, any state interference must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality (KS Puttaswamy & Anr. vs UOI). Second, as seen by the court’s most recent refusals to normalise ongoing, warrantless location monitoring, such as the ruling overturning bail requirements that required accused individuals to provide a Google maps pin, as movement tracking necessitates closer examination (Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.,).When taken as a whole, these authorities maintain that unrestricted, ongoing access to mobility and toll-transaction records is a constitutional issue and cannot be handled as an administrative convenience. 

‍

Structural Fault Lines in the NTR Framework

‍

Fundamentally, the NTR policy generates structural vulnerabilities by providing nearly unrestricted access through APIs and even mass transfers on physical media to a broad range of parties, including insurance companies, law enforcement, and intelligence services. This design undermines constitutional protections in three ways: first, it makes it possible to draw conclusions about private life patterns that the Supreme Court has identified as one of the most sensitive data categories by exposing rich mobility trails like FASTag logs and vehicle-linked identities; Second, it allows bulk datasets to circulate outside the ministry’s custodial boundary, which creates the possibility of function creep, secondary use, and monetisation risks reminiscent of the bulk sharing regime that the government itself once abandoned; and third, it introduces coercive exclusion by tying private sector access to Aadhaar-based OTP consent. 

‍

Reference

• https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/circulars_document/Data-Sharing-policy-20082025-merged.pdf

‍

Introduction

In a setback to the Centre, the Bombay High Court on Friday 20th September 2024, struck down the provisions under IT Amendment Rules 2023, which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms. 

Chronological Overview

• On 6th April 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (IT Amendment Rules, 2023). These rules introduced new provisions to establish a fact-checking unit with respect to “any business of the central government”. This amendment was done In exercise of the powers conferred by section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (IT Act).
• On 20 March 2024, the Central Government notified the Press Information Bureau (PIB) as FCU under rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023). 
• The next day on  21st March 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre's decision on notifying PIB -FCU, considering the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A detailed analysis covered by CyberPeace on the Supreme Court Stay decision can be accessed here.
• In the latest development, the Bombay High Court on 20th September 2024, struck down the provisions under IT Amendment Rules 2023, which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms.  

Brief Overview of Bombay High Court decision dated 20th September 2024

Justice AS Chandurkar was appointed as the third judge after a split verdict in January 2023 by a division bench consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhal.  As a Tie-breaker judge' Justice AS Chandurkar delivered the decision striking down provisions for setting up a Fact Check Unit under IT amendment 2023 rules. Striking down the Centre's proposed fact check unit provision, Justice A S Chandurkar of Bombay High Court also opined that there was no rationale to undertake an exercise in determining whether information related to the business of the Central govt was fake or false or misleading when in digital form but not doing the same when such information was in print. It was also contended that there is no justification to introduce an FCU only in relation to the business of the Central Government. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) has a serious chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution since the communication of the view of the FCU will result in the intermediary simply pulling down the content for fear of consequences or losing the safe harbour provision given under IT Act.  

Justice Chandurkar held that the expressions ‘fake, false or misleading’ are ‘vague and overbroad’, and that the ‘test of proportionality’ is not satisfied. Rule 3(1)(b)(v), was violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and it is “ultra vires”, or beyond the powers, of the IT Act.

Role of Expert Organisations in Curbing Mis/Disinformation and Fake News

In light of the recent developments, and the rising incidents of Mis/Disinformation and Fake News it becomes significantly important that we all stand together in the fight against these challenges. The actions against Mis/Disinformation and fake news should be strengthened by collective efforts, the expert organisations like CyberPeace Foundation plays an key role in enabling and encouraging netizens to exercise caution and rely on authenticated sources, rather than solely rely on govt FCU to block the content. 

Mis/Disinformation and Fake News should be stopped, identified and countered by netizens at the very first stage of its spread. In light of the Bombay High Court's decision to stuck down the provision related to setting up the FCU by the Central Government, it entails that the government's intention to address misinformation related solely to its business/operations may not have been effectively communicated in the eyes of the judiciary.

It is high time to exercise collective efforts against Mis/Disinformation and Fake News and support expert organizations who are actively engaged in conducting proactive measures, and campaigns to target these challenges, specifically in the online information landscape. CyberPeace actively publishes fact-checking reports and insights on Prebunking and Debunking, conducts expert sessions and takes various key steps aimed at empowering netizens to build cognitive defences to recognise the susceptible information, disregard misleading claims and prevent further spreads to ensure the true online information landscape.

References:

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/20/bombay-high-court-it-rules-amendment-2023-fact-check-units-article14-article19-legal-news/#:~:text=Bombay%20High%20Court%3A%20A%20case,grounds%20that%20it%20violated%20constitutional
• https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-hc-strikes-down-it-act-amendment-fact-check-unit-9579044/
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/supreme-court-stay-on-centres-notification-of-pibs-fact-check-unit-under-it-amendment-rules-2023

‍