The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is an important regulatory cog in our rapidly growing free market economy. Its mandate is to break monopoly and prevent unfair trade practices. Even at the best of times, this is a difficult task—it isn't easy, for example, to prove cartel-like behaviour unless one of the colluding parties is persuaded to spill the beans. And the CCI hasn't yet got enough experts in its ranks. At this stage, when the CCI is still finding its feet, the last thing that it wants is a turf war. But that's exactly what seems to be brewing between the CCI and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT), a quasi-judicial body, which hears appeals against decisions made by the CCI. The CCI, according to a report in FE on Thursday, is moving the Supreme
Court against the CAT, accusing the latter of overstepping its brief. The specific case relates to CCI's investigation into an alleged cartel-like arrangement between SAIL and the Indian Railways. Jindal Steel & Power had lodged a complaint with the CCI about an exclusive supply arrangement between SAIL and Indian Railways, which they alleged was abuse of dominant position. CAT had recently passed an order halting CCI's investigation into this matter.
It would seem that the CCI does have a valid reason to complain about the CAT's decision. An appellate body can sit in judgment on a decision passed by the CCI, but surely not on whether an investigation should be conducted. CAT ought to have waited for the CCI to complete the investigation, reached a conclusion and then considered the matter if a concerned party chose to appeal. Ordering a halt to an inconclusive investigation seems knee-jerk and unnecessary. In any case, there ought to be a clear enough division of turf to prevent both bodies from interfering in the work of each other. And at a superficial level, it seems obvious that CAT has overstepped its brief. If, indeed, there is some technical provision under which it can legally order such a halt, then the government needs to relook at the legislation and clear the air. The cause of ensuring a competitive, level-playing field across the economy is too crucial to be left to the outcome of a turf war between two competing bodies. For now, it seems that the Supreme Court will have to adjudicate a conflict that should not have arisen in the first place.
