In the rapidly evolving landscape of the competitive Indian commercial market, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) serves as the watchdog of competitive markets, overseeing practices that hinder competition and addressing issues related to monopolistic behaviour. Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act“) has established CCI, which officially started operating on 14th October 2003. Since its inception, the CCI has adopted its first practical regulatory framework, the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulation in 2009 (“Regulations of 2009”), as per the provision of section 64 of the Act, to regulate the purposes of the Act[SXB1] . Over the years, as businesses grew complex and the market environment transformed, the Regulations of 2009 were replaced by the Competition Commission Of India (General) Regulations, 2024 (“Regulations of 2024”), which marks a significant step in this evolution, introducing streamlined, efficient, prompt adjudication, with clear regulatory measures ensuring transparency, confidentiality, and monitoring in the working of CCI.
The Regulations of 2024repealed the Regulations of 2009. While the new Regulations of 2024 strengthen the regulatory framework and effective enforcement of the competition norms in India, they also introduce challenges such as implementation complexity, legal uncertainties, and potential increased litigation. Adequate preparation and adaptation by stakeholders are crucial for the smooth working of the new regulations.[SXB2]
Issues in Regulations of 2009
The Regulations of 2009 governing the CCI faced significant criticism due to their lengthy and cumbersome procedures. The investigative and adjudicatory processes were often slow, leading to substantial delays in resolving the disputes. In the case of Balrampur Chini Mills v. CCI & Ors. (2018), NCLAT noted that there has been a delay of 13 months from the conclusion of the final hearing to the issuing of the order, which makes the order excessive and beyond the scope of reasonability. Such inefficiency affected businesses and stakeholders, who voiced concerns about the regulatory bottlenecks that hampered the timely resolution of cases. The drawn-out processes ultimately undermined the effectiveness of the CCI in fulfilling its mandate, creating a need for more streamlined regulations to improve procedural efficiency.
Another major issue was the need for more clarity in several key provisions. Ambiguous wording left many aspects open to interpretation, resulting in inconsistent enforcement and legal uncertainties for businesses. One example is the unclear distinction between miscellaneous and interlocutory applications, which caused confusion among legal practitioners and led to the uneven handling of cases[SXB3] . Forum shopping was another significant issue that the apex court observed in the case of the Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors (2018). This lack of precision in the legal framework complicated compliance and hindered the CCI’s ability to maintain consistency in its regulatory approach.[SXB4]
The regulations needed to be more adequate regarding confidentiality measures, particularly when balancing transparency with protecting sensitive business information. Many businesses expressed concerns that the existing framework did not provide sufficient safeguards, leaving confidential data vulnerable to exposure. This, in turn, posed risks to their competitive positions. In the case of CCI v. Google LLC (2020), concerns were raised about the potential exposure of confidential data, which could undermine competitive positions. Additionally, the 90-day time limit for interim orders proved insufficient for thorough investigations, leading to rushed decisions that sometimes compromised the fairness and accuracy of the outcomes. The Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings case of 2021 highlighted the challenges of making interim decisions within the constrained time frame. [SXB5]
Regulations of 2024
On 17th September, the publication of Regulations of 2024 on CCI’s website brings significant changes concerning the Regulations of 2009 to streamline the regulatory measures, tackle the previous challenges, and smoothen the CCI’s procedural aspects.
The definition clause of Regulation 2 of the Regulations of 2024 clearly distinguishes between miscellaneous and interlocutory applications. It spelt out that an interlocutory application is a request made to the CCI while a case is ongoing. It addresses issues that arise during the proceedings, separate from the primary matter but needing immediate attention. For example, a party can file an interlocutory application to request an interim relief or order. At the same time, the case is being heard, ensuring specific measures are taken without waiting for the final verdict.
In contrast, a miscellaneous application is filed after the CCI has passed a final order in a case. This application usually deals with issues following the conclusion of the primary proceedings, such as clarifications, enforcement requests, or any additional directions that need to be issued post-verdict. It does not relate to submissions to comply with prior CCI orders but seeks new or follow-up actions after closing the case.[SXB6]
Regulation 14 introduces rules for parties to submit additional evidence or arguments after initial hearings, allowing for more thorough case presentations. It ensures that all supplementary submissions follow the same filing, signing, and procedural compliance standards as the original filings. The key reason this provision has been inserted is to maintain procedural consistency. The regulation aims to avoid confusion and ensure uniformity across all filings by applying the same standards to all subsequent submissions. It helps streamline the process and ensures that further documents or submissions adhere to the same rules, improving efficiency and reducing the likelihood of procedural disputes. The exceptions for applications seeking extensions of time or adjournments indicate that such requests are handled differently, possibly with more flexibility, as they do not impact the substantive progression of the case but are procedural requests. This ensures the process is not burdened with unnecessary formalities for minor administrative matters.
The changes to Regulation 21 aligned with amendments to Section 26 of the Act, including introducing a show-cause notice, which enhances transparency and allows parties to respond to allegations. These revisions incorporate the CCI’s practical experience conducting inquiries over the years. Minor adjustments to Regulation 22 address stakeholder concerns and ensure the regulations reflect the Commission’s existing practices, promoting a more effective and fair inquiry process.
In Regulations of 2019’s Regulation 11, which stipulates the period between interim order and final order, amended Regulations now set a 180-day timeframe instead of 90 days, ensuring that concerned matters are addressed and providing clarity and accountability in the regulatory process.
Proviso of clause 2 of Regulation 46 spelt out that only one authorization letter or vakalatnama per party is valid at any time, and all legal representatives must sign it. If a party files a new authorization letter or vakalatnama, it cancels the previous one. This proviso clause has been added to avoid confusion and ensure a clear and up-to-date record of who is authorized to act on behalf of each party. The regulation has clarified that a party can now engage multiple legal counsels or law firms.
Regulation 54 has been added to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the Commission’s orders. By appointing independent agencies, the Commission aims to oversee compliance and address conflicts of interest, promoting transparency and accountability. This structure helps maintain high monitoring standards while protecting the confidentiality of sensitive information related to the proceedings.
The objectives behind the changes in the Regulations of 2024 are to streamline regulatory processes, enhance procedural clarity, and improve the overall efficiency of case management. By introducing provisions like early opinions on prima facie cases, more precise distinctions between different types of applications, and the option for further submissions, the amendments aim to reduce delays, ensure more informed decision-making, and provide greater flexibility for handling complex business disputes. Additionally, the changes strengthen confidentiality protections and allow multiple legal representatives to align the regulations with modern business needs while maintaining fairness and transparency in enforcement[SXB7] .
Benefits of the Regulations of 2024
The Regulations of 2024 brought several benefits to improve the competition law framework. These regulations streamlined procedural processes, ensuring more efficient handling of cases and reducing delays in adjudication. By clarifying various procedural rules, including submission timelines and formats, they made it easier for businesses to comply with regulatory requirements. The Regulations of 2024 introduced more apparent confidentiality protections, helping companies to safeguard sensitive information while participating in investigations. Additionally, the regulations enhanced transparency in CCI proceedings, fostering trust between the regulator and stakeholders, and contributed to a more predictable and fair competition law environment in India.[SXB8]
Conclusion
The amendments introduced in the Regulations of 2024 have significant implications for businesses, legal practitioners, and the CCI itself. The regulations provide greater clarity and efficiency for businesses, leading to smoother interactions with the CCI, though they may also face increased scrutiny. Legal practitioners benefit from the ability to file further submissions and engage multiple representatives, allowing for more effective advocacy, but they must adapt to the new procedural landscape. For the CCI, these changes streamline processes and enhance its capacity to focus on substantive issues, ultimately fostering a more robust regulatory framework that benefits consumers and the market.[SXB9]
[SXB1]It is suggested the author elucidate some of these purposes.
[SXB2]What is this paper’s argument? What is the structure and roadmap being followed by the author in the piece? Please specify.
[SXB3]Explain the ambiguity in more detail
[SXB4]Explain forum shopping as well for the benefit of the reader.
[SXB5]Explain these arguments. The piece is just 1500 words right now, these can be fleshed out to clearly highlight the problems.
[SXB6]How does this clarify the position of law existent till now?
[SXB7]This is a general overview. Please point out the problem with each regulation and highlight the amendment being made. Point to caselaw that has criticized the old regulations as well.
[SXB8]Elaborate further. This is very generic.
[SXB9]The piece is very descriptive. Please specify the main argument and point of analyses very explicitly and clearly.
Author: Md Mujtaba is a 4th-year BBA LLB student at the Indian Institute of Management Rohtak.
