Dissertation
A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Frameworks for Crypto-Assets and the Path Forward for India
India is one of the world’s largest crypto markets, yet its rules are mostly about tax and anti-money-laundering. The dissertation asks how India can build a balanced, risk-based regime by learning from the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore.
Outline in five chapters
- IntroductionBackground, research questions and objectives, methodology, definitions and types of crypto-assets, the technology behind them, key risks, and the international soft-law baseline.
- The Indian regulatory landscapeHow the rules evolved, from early RBI advisories to the 2020 Supreme Court judgment, the 2022 tax regime and the 2023 PMLA amendments; today’s roles of the RBI, SEBI and IFSCA; and the gaps that remain.
- Selected jurisdictionsA theme-by-theme study of the European Union (MiCA), the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore: approach, scope, supervision, licensing, investor protection, AML/CFT and stablecoins.
- Comparison, lessons and challenges for IndiaWhere the regimes converge and differ, how India measures up, the main risks in the Indian context, and the lessons and recommendations that can transfer.
- ConclusionFindings, recommendations, contributions, limitations and suggestions for further research.
Main points
- India’s market size contrasts with a framework centred on tax and AML/CFT, with no complete licensing, conduct or investor-protection regime.
- The leading jurisdictions converge on regulating by activity and risk, tightening AML/CFT and treating stablecoins separately.
- Recommendations cover primary legislation, institutional roles (including interim self-regulatory bodies), licensing and conduct standards, stablecoins and tax.
Interdisciplinary Research Project
Investigating the Legal Boundaries of Employee Monitoring and Data Collection in the Workplace
Indian law allows reasonable monitoring of employees for legitimate business reasons. The project tests whether it adequately handles monitoring that is excessive, opaque, continuous or AI-driven, given how unequal an employee’s bargaining power is.
Outline in six chapters
- IntroductionThe problem, research questions, objectives, hypothesis, scope and method.
- Constitutional foundations of employee privacyArticle 21, the Puttaswamy judgment, dignity and informational privacy, and the reasonable expectation of privacy at work.
- The Indian legal frameworkThe DPDP Act, 2023 including Section 7(i) on employment processing, employee consent and unequal bargaining power, the IT Act and SPDI Rules, labour law, and current gaps.
- Monitoring technologies and legal challengesA five-part test of legality (purpose, necessity, proportionality, transparency, safeguards) applied to CCTV, biometric attendance, email and device monitoring, location tracking, and AI-based analytics.
- Empirical study and comparisonA survey of 29 working professionals, set beside the GDPR, UK ICO guidance on monitoring workers, and the EU AI Act.
- Findings and recommendationsAnswers to each research question, a test of the hypothesis, and recommendations for employers, regulators and policy-makers.
Main points
- The hypothesis held on both counts: monitoring is permitted when reasonable, but the framework falls short for excessive and AI-enabled monitoring.
- Employee consent is a weak safeguard where refusing could cost a person their job or standing.
- There is no mandatory impact assessment for high-risk workplace tools and no standard for explaining algorithmic performance scores.
- In the survey, about 31% of respondents said they clearly knew Indian privacy law, and 69% favoured a specific law on workplace surveillance.
