The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to examine a plea seeking mandatory disclosure of cryptocurrencies and other virtual digital assets by election candidates in their nomination affidavits.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia disposed of a writ petition filed by advocate Deepanshu Sahu. The Court directed the concerned Ministry of the Union of India to take an informed decision on the issues raised.
The Bench requested that the decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
Inclusion of Virtual Digital Assets Under RPA
The petition sought inclusion of “Virtual Digital Assets” within the definition of assets under Section 75A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). It also requested a separate disclosure column for such assets in Form 26 under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The petitioner argued that candidates currently disclose movable and immovable assets. However, the law does not expressly recognise cryptocurrencies. Nor does it provide a specific disclosure mechanism for such holdings.
The Court observed that the concerned Ministry should examine these issues.
While disposing of the petition, the Bench stated:
“Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with direction to the concerned Ministry of the Union of India to consider the grievances raised in this writ petition and take a informed decision thereto as expeditiously as possible say within a period of six months.”
Alleged Lacuna in Existing Framework
The petitioner contended that Form 26 does not define or separately list Virtual Digital Assets. According to him, this creates a serious lacuna in the statutory framework.
He argued that candidates may conceal substantial digital wealth under the residual category of “any other assets.” They may also avoid disclosure entirely.
The plea emphasised the pseudonymous, decentralised and cross-border nature of cryptocurrencies. It stated that this omission creates a structural loophole. Such a loophole could enable undisclosed political funding, evasion of expenditure ceilings, concealment of wealth and quid-pro-quo arrangements.
The petition stated:
“The absence of a specific column or definition for Virtual Digital Assets in Form 26 permits candidates to conceal substantial digital wealth under the vague residual category of ‘any other assets’ or avoid disclosure altogether. Given the pseudonymous, decentralised, and cross-border nature of cryptocurrencies, this omission creates a structural loophole capable of being exploited for undisclosed political funding, circumvention of expenditure ceilings, concealment of wealth, quid-pro-quo arrangements, and electoral malpractices, thereby defeating the very object of Section 75A of the RPA.”
Right to Information Under Article 19(1)(a)
The petitioner further argued that non-disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings violates voters’ fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
He submitted that disclosure of such assets is feasible and practicable. The plea referred to voluntary disclosures by sitting Members of Parliament in election affidavits and parliamentary declarations. According to the petitioner, these instances show that implementation is workable.
The petition sought limited reliefs. It requested a declaration that Virtual Digital Assets fall within the scope of “movable assets” under Section 75A of the RPA. It also sought a direction to amend Form 26 to introduce a dedicated disclosure mechanism.
The petitioner maintained that the reliefs do not interfere with legislative policy or create new offences. Instead, they aim to promote transparency, accountability and informed democratic choice.
Appearance
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Suroor Mander with Mr. Siddharth Mishra, Mr. Kartik Rajpurohit, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Sehrish Jafri, Advocates.
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Adhiraj Singh, GP for Respondents 1 & 2; Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for Respondent 2.
Case Title: Deepanshu Sahu v. Union of India & Ors.
