SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1224

A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
Competition Commission of India – Appellant
Versus
Bharti Airtel Limited – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG, Prashanto Sen, Sr. Advocate, Arjun Krishnan, Dhruv Malik, V.C. Shukla, Ankur Singh, Sumit Srivastava, Kaustav Som, Arjun Krishnan, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Ritin Rai, Biju Raman, Raghav Shankar, Vishnu Sharma, Aabhas Kshetarpal, Ms. Kritika Bharadwaj, Tushar Bharadwaj, Abipshit Mishra, Ms. Sakshi Agarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Syed Jafar Alam, Marezban P. Bharucha, Harsh Kaushik, S. S. Shroff, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Bharath Gangadhran, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

What is the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in the telecommunications sector when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) also has regulatory powers? What is the nature of an order passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002? Are writ petitions maintainable against an order passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, when jurisdictional issues are raised?

Key Points: - Unless jurisdictional aspects are decided and IDOs are held to have violated provisions of the TRAI Act, the CCI cannot determine if a violation of the TRAI Act amounts to 'abuse of dominance' or 'anti-competitive agreements' (!) . - When two Acts operate in different fields with different purposes, like the TRAI Act and the Competition Act, there is no implied repeal of one by the other (!) . - Even if TRAI determines an activity to be anti-competitive, only the CCI is empowered to take action (!) . - Primacy must be given to the respective objectives of TRAI and CCI under their respective Acts, maintaining a balance between them (!) . - An order of the CCI under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, directing an investigation, is an administrative order (!) . - Petitions raising jurisdictional issues are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution (!) . - The High Court correctly quashed the CCI's order because the CCI could exercise jurisdiction only after TRAI returned its findings on the jurisdictional aspects (!) . - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the CCI's order, dismissing the appeals (!) . - The telecommunication sector is governed by the Telegraph Act, TRAI Act, and related regulations, and disputes concerning contract clauses, licenses, and interconnection agreements are to be settled by TRAI/TDSAT first (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Competition Act and TRAI Act are independent statutes, and while there is no conflict of jurisdiction, the Competition Act alone is insufficient to decide issues arising from the TRAI Act and contract conditions (!) .

What is the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in the telecommunications sector when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) also has regulatory powers?

What is the nature of an order passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002?

Are writ petitions maintainable against an order passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, when jurisdictional issues are raised?


JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

Leave granted.

2. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'RJIL') has filed information under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Competition Act') before the Competition Commission of India (for short, 'CCI') alleging anti-competitive agreement/cartel having been formed by three major telecom operators, namely, Bharti Airtel Limited, Vodafone India Limited and Idea Cellular Limited (Incumbent Dominant Operators) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IDOs’). Similar Informations under Section 19 of the Competition Act were also filed by one Mr. Ranjan Sardana, Chartered Accountant, and Mr. Justice Kantilal Ambalal Puj (Retd.). These were registered by the CCI as Case Nos. 80-81, 83 and 95 respectively. As per Section 26 of the Competition Act, on receipt of such an information, the CCI has to form an opinion as to whether there exists a prima facie case or not. If it is of the opinion that there exists a prima facie case, the CCI directs the Director General to cause an investigation to be made into the


































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top