RBI’s ban on cryptos was lifted by an SC order on the grounds of proportionality. The doctrine of proportionality entails that any public authority must maintain a sense of proportion between the goal it wants to achieve and the means it employs to achieve it. RBI could have employed ‘alternate or less intrusive measures’. The crypto regulation bill could also be challenged if it bans the cryptos. Besides there is no clear definition of what constitutes a private crypto. Bitcoin and Ethereum could be considered public cryptos as they are based on open blockchain. Cryptos could be used for money laundering or terror financing. However, could it be proved that most usage of cryptos is for such activities? It is also not necessary to assume that for value transfer, only the fiat currency is the option. Even gold is used for value transfer. As far as the anonymity is concerned, it could be said blockchain analysis could lead to deanomysing.

Under article 19, there is a right to trade in cryptos. There is a right to property if cryptos are accepted as assets. Under article 14 of equality, there cannot be an arbitrary decision by the government. Its encryption software source code is protected by the First Amendment in the US. Though reasonable restrictions can be placed, there could not be disproportionate.