Writ jurisdiction limits in crypto disputes: no SIT, no policy mandate, and no writ relief against private parties.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held to be unsuitable for directing a Special Investigation Team absent exceptional circumstances, a prima facie basis, or exhaustion of ordinary remedies, so no investigation order was issued. A mandamus could not be used to compel the framing of stricter cryptocurrency policy or a regulatory regime, because the Court cannot assume a legislative role or create law where an existing legal duty is absent. Private respondents not shown to be State under Article 12 or to perform public functions were not amenable to writ relief for release of invested monies, so the monetary claim was not entertained in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a direction for constitution of a Special Investigation Team for investigation into the alleged misconduct of the cryptocurrency exchange was warranted. (ii) Whether the Court could issue a writ of mandamus to direct framing of stricter policies or a regulatory regime for cryptocurrency exchanges dealing in virtual digital assets. (iii) Whether the private respondents were amenable to writ jurisdiction for a direction to release the petitioner's invested monies.

Issue (i): Whether a direction for constitution of a Special Investigation Team for investigation into the alleged misconduct of the cryptocurrency exchange was warranted.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct investigation by the CBI or a similar agency is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional cases where the material on record discloses a prima facie case requiring such intervention. The record did not disclose any exceptional circumstance, and no FIR had been registered at the petitioner's instance. Alternative remedies were available in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The request for constitution of a Special Investigation Team was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could issue a writ of mandamus to direct framing of stricter policies or a regulatory regime for cryptocurrency exchanges dealing in virtual digital assets.

Analysis: A writ of mandamus lies to enforce an existing legal duty, and the Court cannot assume the role of the legislature by compelling enactment of policy or law on a subject. The petitioner's own reliance on existing remedies showed that the matter was not one of a remediless legislative vacuum warranting judicial creation of policy.

Conclusion: No direction for framing of policy or regulation was issued.

Issue (iii): Whether the private respondents were amenable to writ jurisdiction for a direction to release the petitioner's invested monies.

Analysis: The private respondents were not shown to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor were they found to be discharging public functions. On that basis, they were not amenable to writ jurisdiction for the monetary relief sought.

Conclusion: The monetary claim against the private respondents was not entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of without granting the substantive reliefs sought, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue remedies available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: The extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel a policy-making function or to order investigative intervention absent exceptional circumstances and a prima facie basis, and purely private entities not performing public functions are not amenable to writ relief for private monetary claims.

---