Blockchain technology has emerged as one of the most disruptive and consequential innovations of the twenty-first century, promising to fundamentally alter how data is stored, verified, and transferred across distributed networks without reliance on any central authority. The technology's core attributes—decentralization, immutability, transparency, and cryptographic security—offer profound implications for sectors as varied as finance, healthcare, supply chain management, land administration, and legal adjudication. In the context of India, a nation undergoing rapid digital transformation and grappling with ambitious governance reform, blockchain represents both an extraordinary opportunity and a formidable regulatory challenge. India's existing legal architecture, built around legislation such as the Information Technology Act of 2000, the Indian Contract Act of 1872, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, was designed for a pre-blockchain world and has not kept pace with the accelerating demands of decentralized technology deployment. This paper presents an original, empirical, and multidisciplinary investigation into the intersection of blockchain technology and the Indian legal framework. Drawing upon a systematic analysis of prior scholarly literature, government policy documents, judicial decisions, and regulatory pronouncements, the study identifies critical lacunae in India's current legal provisions that impede the full-scale adoption of blockchain in both public and private sector contexts. The research specifically examines the enforceability of smart contracts under Indian contract law, the recognition of distributed ledger-based digital signatures under the IT Act, data privacy obligations under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 vis-à-vis blockchain's inherent data immutability, and the treatment of virtual digital assets under recent tax and anti-money laundering provisions. The methodology combines a structured literature review of forty-three peer-reviewed papers, government white papers, and institutional reports with a thematic synthesis approach that clusters findings around five core dimensions: regulatory clarity, judicial recognition, technological standards, cross-border governance, and industry-specific deployment challenges. Our analysis reveals that India is at a pivotal regulatory juncture. While the government has taken proactive steps through the National Blockchain Strategy of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and Niti Aayog's foundational blockchain framework, these policy documents remain aspirational rather than legally binding, leaving practitioners, businesses, and courts without actionable statutory guidance. The paper identifies five principal challenges that obstruct blockchain's legal integration: first, the absence of explicit statutory recognition of blockchain records as valid legal evidence under the Indian Evidence Act; second, ambiguity surrounding the enforceability of self-executing smart contracts absent human intervention; third, the jurisdictional complexity arising from cross-border blockchain transactions; fourth, the tension between the right to be forgotten under emerging data protection law and the permanence of blockchain records; and fifth, the lack of standardized technical and operational frameworks governing permissioned versus permissionless blockchain implementations in regulated industries. Based on these findings, the paper advances a set of targeted policy recommendations including legislative amendments to the IT Act to formally recognize blockchain records, the creation of a dedicated blockchain regulatory sandbox, judicial training programs, and India's accession to international instruments on electronic commerce and arbitration. The findings contribute to an emerging body of literature on technology law in developing economies and offer actionable guidance for policymakers, legal practitioners, and technology adopters in India. This research is intended as a novel scholarly contribution and not a reproduction of any prior work.
Harinath et al. (Wed,) studied this question.