Reference by Statutory Authority
Under the section Reference by Statutory Authority, the legal provision outlines the consultative framework between sector-specific statutory authorities and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) when potential statutory conflicts arise.
If a party in an ongoing regulatory proceeding argues that an authority’s decision violates or conflicts with the Competition Act, or if the authority acts on its own initiative (suo motu), a formal reference may be submitted to the CCI for advice.
Upon receiving the reference, the Commission must deliver its expert opinion within 60 days.
The referring authority must then consider the CCI’s opinion before issuing its final order and record its reasons concerning the competition issues raised.
4.6 Reference by Commission
Under the heading Reference by Commission, the text details the legal procedure where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) seeks specialized guidance from other statutory sector regulators during its proceedings.
If a party before the CCI raises an issue regarding a decision or provision falling under the mandate of another regulatory authority, or if the CCI acts on its own accord (suo motu), the Commission can refer the matter directly to that statutory body.
The receiving authority must provide its expert opinion within 60 days.
Upon receiving the response, the CCI considers the opinion, incorporates the feedback into its final order, and records its formal reasoning regarding the issues referred and addressed.
4.7 Procedure for Inquiry
Under the heading Procedure for Inquiry, the text details the legal workflow followed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) when handling inquiries under Section 26.
When the CCI establishes a prima facie case through government references, information under Section 19, or suo motu knowledge, it directs the Director General (DG) to conduct a time-bound investigation and submit a comprehensive report, with power to consolidate substantially similar matters.
If the DG’s report finds no contravention of the Act, the CCI invites objections or suggestions from the concerned parties or referring authority and, if satisfied, closes the matter through formal orders.
If further investigation is required, the CCI may direct the DG to conduct additional investigation, initiate further inquiry, or conduct the inquiry itself.
Where the DG’s report confirms a contravention of the Act and sufficient grounds exist, the Commission proceeds with further inquiry and final hearings as prescribed by law.
4.8 Orders by CCI After Inquiry into Agreements or Abuse of Dominant Position
Under the section Orders by CCI After Inquiry into Agreements or Abuse of Dominant Position, the text outlines the remedial powers and penalty frameworks available to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) when a violation of Section 3 (anti-competitive agreements) or Section 4 (abuse of dominant position) is proven.
The Commission can issue cease-and-desist directions, mandate modification of offending agreements, and enforce compliance, including payment of costs.
For non-compliance, the CCI can impose financial penalties of up to 10% of the average turnover for the preceding 3 financial years.
In cases involving illegal cartels, the penalty may extend to 3 times the net profit for each year of operation or 10% of annual turnover for each year the cartel continued, whichever is higher.
These penalties and enforcement orders may also extend to other members of the corporate group that contributed to or were responsible for the anti-competitive conduct.
4.9 Division of Enterprise Enjoying Dominant Position
Under the section Division of Enterprise Enjoying Dominant Position, the text sets out the extraordinary structural remedies available to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 28 of the Competition Act.
To ensure that a dominant company does not abuse its market power, the CCI can issue a written directive ordering the break-up or division of the enterprise, overriding any other prevailing law.
Such an order addresses corporate restructuring matters, including the transfer or vesting of property, liabilities, and contractual rights; creation, cancellation, or allotment of shares and securities; creation or winding up of entities; and amendment of the Memorandum of Association or Articles of Association.
Furthermore, the framework provides operational adjustments to execute the division and grants company officers who lose their positions due to the forced division the right to claim compensation for termination of office.
4.10 Procedure for Investigation of Combinations
Under the section Procedure for Investigation of Combinations, the statutory framework outlines the multi-stage review process conducted by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 29 regarding proposed mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations.
When the CCI identifies a prima facie concern that a combination causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition, it issues a show-cause notice, allowing the parties 30 days to explain why an investigation should not occur, followed by an optional time-bound report from the Director General.
If concerns persist, the Commission directs within 7 working days from receiving the response or DG report, whichever is later, that the parties publish key combination details within 10 working days for public information.
Affected members of the public then have 15 working days to submit written objections.
After the public comment phase, the CCI may request additional details, which must be supplied within 15 working days.
Finally, upon receiving all requested data, the CCI proceeds toward a final order under Section 31 within 45 working days.
4.11 Inquiry into Disclosures Regarding Proposed Combination
Under the section Inquiry into Disclosures Regarding Proposed Combination, the text outlines the statutory scope of inquiry undertaken by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) upon receiving a formal notification regarding a proposed merger, acquisition, or amalgamation.
Once a person or enterprise files a notice detailing a proposed combination, the Commission initiates an inquiry to verify whether the factual disclosures in the notification are accurate and truthful and to determine whether the proposed combination causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) within the relevant market in India.
4.12 Orders of Commission on Certain Combinations
Under the section Orders of Commission on Certain Combinations, the text details the statutory order framework available to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 31 for determining the fate of proposed combinations.
If the CCI finds no appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC), it approves the transaction; additionally, if no order is issued within 210 days of notice under Section 6(2), the combination receives deemed approval by operation of law.
Conversely, if an anti-competitive impact exists, the CCI prohibits the deal or proposes time-bound remedies to eliminate the harm.
Parties may propose counter-amendments within 30 working days, which, if accepted, lead to approval; otherwise, they receive a final 30 working days to accept the Commission’s required modifications, failing which the combination is deemed anti-competitive.
Ultimately, when a combination is prohibited or declared void, the underlying acquisition, control transfer, or merger is legally prevented from taking effect as though it never occurred, without precluding additional penalties or prosecution under the Act.
4.13 Acts Taking Place Outside India, but Having an Effect on Competition in India¹
Under the section Acts Taking Place Outside India, but Having an Effect on Competition in India (embodying Section 32 and the “Effects Doctrine” under the Competition Act, 2002), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is granted extraterritorial jurisdiction to inquire into and pass appropriate orders regarding anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, or mergers/combinations.
This power applies even when the agreement was executed abroad, an involved party or dominant enterprise resides outside India, the combination occurred on foreign soil, or the related practice originated outside Indian territory.
The threshold for exercising this extraterritorial reach is whether the foreign act, practice, or global deal has—or is likely to have—an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) within the relevant market in India.
4.14 Power to Issue Interim Orders
Under Section 4.14, titled Power to Issue Interim Orders (corresponding to Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is granted discretionary authority to temporarily halt potential or ongoing legal contraventions during an active inquiry.
If the Commission is satisfied that an anti-competitive act has occurred and continues, or is imminently about to happen, it may issue an order temporarily restraining the involved party from carrying on that act until the inquiry is completed or further orders are passed.
To prevent irreversible harm to market competition, the Commission may also issue such interim restraint orders immediately without prior notice to the affected party whenever it considers immediate action necessary.
4.15 Miscellaneous
4.15.1 Appearance before Commission³
Under Section 4.15.1, titled Appearance before Commission (corresponding to Section 35 of the Competition Act, 2002), the framework regulates legal representation in proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
A person, enterprise, or Director General may appear in person or authorize professional representatives to present the case on their behalf.
Authorized representatives may include chartered accountants, company secretaries, cost accountants, legal practitioners, or authorized officers of the enterprise, providing flexible options for legal and technical representation during hearings.
4.15.2 Power of Commission to Regulate its Own Procedure1
Under Section 4.15.2, titled Power of Commission to Regulate its Own Procedure (embodying Section 36 of the Competition Act, 2002), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered to establish its own procedural rules while remaining bound by the principles of natural justice.
For carrying out its statutory duties, the CCI holds powers identical to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including summoning witnesses, examining individuals on oath, enforcing document production, accepting affidavit evidence, issuing commissions for witness examination, and requisitioning public records from government offices under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Additionally, the Commission may engage independent experts in fields such as economics, trade, and accountancy to assist in inquiries and issue binding directions requiring any person or enterprise to supply relevant trade books, records, or business information to the Director General, Secretary, or designated authorized officer.
4.16 Rectification of Orders
Under the section Rectification of Orders (corresponding to Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002), the text sets out the authority of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to correct errors in its official decisions.
The CCI is empowered to amend any order issued under the Act to rectify a mistake apparent from the record.
Subject to statutory guidelines, the Commission may make such an amendment either on its own motion (suo motu) or when the error is formally brought to its notice by any party subject to or affected by the order.
4.17 Execution of Commission Orders Imposing Monetary Penalty
Under the section Execution of Commission Orders Imposing Monetary Penalty (embodying Section 39 of the Competition Act, 2002), the text establishes the statutory procedure for recovering unpaid monetary penalties imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
If a party fails to pay a penalty, the CCI can refer the matter to the relevant Income Tax authorities, treating the outstanding penalty as tax arrears due under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Upon such reference, the defaulting party is classified as an “assessee in default,” triggering tax recovery provisions under Sections 221 to 227, 228A, 229, 231, and 232, along with the Second Schedule and related rules of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as if these provisions were part of the Competition Act, 2002.
5. Power to Review
Under the section Power to Review, the text traces the evolution of the Competition Commission of India’s authority to revisit its orders.
Although the original Competition Act, 2002 conferred explicit review powers upon the CCI, the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 formally repealed this provision.
However, in the landmark 2015 judgment of Google Inc. v. CCI, the Delhi High Court clarified that the CCI still possesses the power to recall or review preliminary investigation orders issued under Section 26(1), subject to specific restrictions.
6. Proposed Amendments to the Act - 2020
Following the recommendations of the 2018 Competition Law Review Committee, the Government of India proposed the 2020 Amendment Bill to modernize the Competition Act, 2002.
Key reforms include establishing a governing body for non-adjudicatory and policy functions, introducing “commitment and settlement” mechanisms to expedite case resolutions, expanding the term “cartel” to cover new-age technology and data control, introducing penalties including imprisonment for non-compliance with Director General directions, and streamlining merger control through standards such as “material influence” and fast-track “green channel” approvals.
These developments connect with the jurisprudence in CCI v. Bharti Airtel Limited & Ors., where the Supreme Court clarified the boundary between the market-wide jurisdiction of the CCI and specialized bodies like TRAI.
The Court affirmed that the CCI is empowered across economic sectors to address anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and anti-competitive combinations, while sector-specific technical issues must first be addressed by the specialized regulator.
Harmonizing Section 60 of the Competition Act, the Supreme Court held that TRAI must decide sector-specific jurisdictional issues first; once TRAI makes a prima facie finding of anti-competitive practices, the CCI can exercise its statutory jurisdiction to investigate and conclude the proceedings under competition law.
7. 2023 Amendments
Under Section 7, titled 2023 Amendments, the text outlines the legislative overhaul following the 2019 recommendations of the Competition Law Review Committee.
The Competition (Amendment) Bill passed in April 2023 and was rolled out through seven distinct notifications between May 18, 2023, and September 19, 2024.
The amendments restructure Indian competition law across four main domains: broadening statutory coverage through expanded definitions of “control” and “Relevant Product Market” alongside new Deal Value Thresholds; revamping procedural timelines through deemed approvals, res judicata, and expert testimony; rationalizing enforcement through global turnover calculations and settlement/commitment frameworks; and executing institutional shifts, including transferring the appointment power of the Director General directly to the Commission.
Ultimately, these reforms aim to provide regulatory certainty, ensure rapid market correction, and align India’s legal framework with modern economic realities.
8. Important Judgments
Under the section Important Judgments, the text outlines three key precedent decisions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning digital e-commerce marketplaces and public procurement bid rigging.
In Mr. Mohit Manglani v. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. & Others, the informant alleged that exclusive seller-platform agreements restricted consumer choice; however, the CCI closed the matter under Section 26(2), holding that online platforms enhance market efficiency and consumer convenience without causing an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC).
In Shri B P Khare v. M/s Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries Ltd., the CCI investigated suspected tender cartelization among 29 suppliers of railway clips but refrained from imposing monetary penalties because the respondents were small and micro-enterprises with limited legal awareness and their non-compliant bids caused no actual economic loss, issuing instead a cease-and-desist order.
Lastly, in a suo motu case concerning locomotive spare parts procurement for Indian Railways, the CCI ordered a Section 26(1) DG investigation into collusive pricing and affirmed that bid rigging in public procurement deprives the state exchequer of real value regardless of tender size.
Consequently, each contravening firm was penalized at 2% of its average turnover.
Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited v. Competition Commission of India
In Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited v. Competition Commission of India, car manufacturers challenged the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 before the Delhi High Court.
The dispute arose after the CCI recorded a prima facie opinion on February 24, 2011, and ordered a Director General (DG) investigation into abusive practices in the automotive spare parts market, ultimately finding automobile producers in breach of Section 3 (anti-competitive agreements) and Section 4 (abuse of dominant position).
Partially allowing the writ petition, the Delhi High Court declared Section 22(3), except its proviso, and pre-2017 Section 53E unconstitutional, while upholding the remaining provisions subject to strict operational safeguards.
To enforce the principle that “one who hears must decide,” the Court directed that CCI final hearing benches maintain continuous membership, preferably with 5 to 7 members, including a judicial member.
The Central Government was also directed to fill CCI vacancies within six months, parties were given the right to present mitigating factors in penalty calculations under Excel Crop Care standards, and petitioners were given six weeks to exercise their statutory right of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.