Crypto inheritance in India: what the law actually says
India has no statutory nominee system for cryptocurrency comparable to bank accounts, demat accounts or insurance. Crypto is property and passes under a will or succession law, but no statute addresses how heirs obtain access. The gap is procedural, and it has not been closed.
Is crypto recognised as property in India?
Yes, since October 2025. The Madras High Court in Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs held that cryptocurrency “is a property, which is capable of being enjoyed and possessed in a beneficial form” and capable of being held in trust — the first Indian judgment to classify a virtual digital asset that way.
The court situated crypto as a virtual digital asset under Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that an exchange holding customer assets owes fiduciary duties. The LiveLaw analysis sets out the reasoning.
It arose from an application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the WazirX cyberattack. It decided nothing about inheritance, nominees or succession. Anyone citing it as a crypto inheritance ruling is citing it wrongly.
Do the Indian succession statutes cover crypto?
Not by name. Neither the Indian Succession Act, 1925 nor the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 refers to digital property, digital accounts or platform-held assets, and the Information Technology Act, 2000 is silent on succession. Crypto is inherited under general principles of property that predate it by decades.
An SCC Online analysis from February 2026 makes this point and notes that in practice the outcome is often determined by a platform’s private contractual terms rather than by Indian succession law at all.
Is there a nominee system for crypto?
Not in statute. India has statutory nomination for bank accounts, demat accounts, insurance and provident funds. It has none for cryptocurrency. Some exchanges offer a nomination feature under their own terms of service, but that is a contractual arrangement with one company, not a statutory right, and it still requires succession documentation.
| Asset | Statutory nomination? | Practical effect on death |
|---|---|---|
| Bank account | Yes | Nominee receives; heirs own |
| Demat account | Yes | Nominee receives; heirs own |
| Insurance policy | Yes | Nominee receives; heirs own |
| Crypto on an exchange | No — contract only | Exchange process, succession documents |
| Self-custodied crypto | No | Nothing happens without the key |
Note the pattern in the right-hand column: even where nomination exists, the nominee receives rather than inherits. Why a nominee is not an heir explains why that distinction matters more for digital assets than for anything else.
What about data rights under the DPDP Act?
Section 14 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 allows a Data Principal to nominate someone to exercise their rights under that Act on death or incapacity. Those are data rights — access, correction, erasure. A DPDP nominee does not thereby acquire a wallet balance or any other asset.
The section text is on Indian Kanoon, and King Stubb & Kasiva’s analysis of it is explicit that economic value stays with succession and contract law.
What an Indian crypto holder can actually do
Four steps close most of the gap: make a will that names your virtual digital assets without disclosing credentials, record which exchanges and wallets exist, appoint an executor who understands crypto, and arrange a mechanism that delivers access after death without exposing keys beforehand.
The fourth is the one people skip, because the first three are legal work and the fourth is not. A will can say who inherits a wallet. It cannot open it, and it should never contain the seed phrase — a will can become a public record during probate.