The Competition Act empowers CCI to investigate anti-competitive claims independently, even if related to areas also governed by the TRAI Act, establishing that both regulatory frameworks can operate concurrently without jurisdictional conflict.

JUDGMENT

[W.A.No.1551 of 2025]

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

1. The present intra court appeal, under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed in WP(c) No.29767 of 2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant herein is the original writ petitioner (for short, ‘OWP’). Through the judgment under challenge, the Single Bench has affirmed the order passed underSec. 26(1) of The Competition Act, 2002 (for short, ‘Comp. Act’), whereby The Competition Commission of India (for short, ‘CCI’) has videParas 20 and21 directed the Director General (for short, ‘DG’) to cause an investigation to be made into the information/ complaints filed by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited ( for short, ‘ADNPL’) againstJiostar India Private Limited, formerly known asStar India Private Limited ( for short, ‘SIPL’), Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited ( for short, ‘Disney’) andAsianet Star Communications Private Limited ( for short, ‘Asianet Star’)

under Sec. 19(1)(a) of Comp. Act, 2002.

ADNPL alleged contravention of the various sub-provisions of Sec.

2.1

4 of the Comp. Act by the opposite parties, the appellant herein, of which complaint/ information cognizance has been taken by the CCI and investigation directed through the DG. Though vide Para 21, the CCI has abundantly made luminescent that no expression on merits has been reflected in the case by it and the investigation report so prepared in pursuance of its orders shall be open ended without being swayed by observations made in the order, however SIPL attribute grave prejudices caused to them by the order directing investigation per se by the DG. Such a direction has been necessitated by the CCI after forming a prima facie opinion of violation of the provisions of Sec. 4(2)(a)(ii) r/w 4(2)(c) of the Comp. Act owing to discriminatory pricing, conduct and denial of market access by the SIPL abusing its dominant position in the market qua the ADNPL, the informant before the CCI.

VERDICT OF THE SINGLE BENCH UNDER CHALLENGE

3. The Single Bench of this Court through its comprehensive judgment analysing all the contentions of the contesting parties, including the CCI itself, returned the following findings and directions:

A.

The Comp.Act is an independent special enactment which will operate unhindered by the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short, ‘TRAI Act’), dealing with anti- competitive practices and would therefore, the CCI possess the jurisdiction to entertain information regarding the allegations of misuse of dominant position by the bigger players in the market. Resultantly, the information of ADNPL alleging abuse of dominant position by SIPL in the ‘relevant market’ underSec. 4 was clearly maintainable, regardless of the provisions of the TRAI Act and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 (for short, ‘TRAI Regulations, 2017’);

B.

The contention that since violation and non-compliance of TRAI Regulations, 2017 is involved and therefore TRAI is the authority primarily enjoined with the responsibility to decide upon such allegations of violations as the ‘sectoral regulator’ is not tenable. The CCI cannot be restrained from enquiring into allegations of discriminatory pricing and excessive discounting to Kerala Communicators Cable Limited (for short, ‘KCCL’), to whom excessive discounting arrangements have been provided. When allegations pertaining to anti-