LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Conflict of jurisdiction between Competition Commission of India and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the interplay of roles of the two regulators

Nihal Thareja ,
  03 June 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
The SC did not grant leave to petitioners and upheld the decision of The High Court. The SC recognized that the TRAI is sector specific regulator and has expertise to deal with the issues in the telecom sector, which arise from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. However the jurisdiction of the CCI is not outset completely with regard to telecom sector but the CCIs jurisdiction is pushed out to the later phase, once the issue is decided by the TRAI.
Citation :
APPELLANT: Competition Commission of India RESPONDENT: Bharti Airtel Limited & Others CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11843 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 35574 OF 2017)

Competition Act, 2002 Under Section 3 & 4
CCI Versus Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors

(Appeal dismissed and leave granted)

BENCH:  A.K. SIKRI, J., Ashok Bhushan, J

ISSUE:

Conflict of jurisdiction between Competition Commission of India and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the interplay of roles of the two regulators.

FACTS:

  • Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Bharti Airtel, Idea Cellular Limited, Vodafone India Limited (collectively, the ‘IDOs’) and the Cellular Operators Association of India for the violation of section 3 & section 4 of the Act,
  • Section 19(1) states that the commission may inquire into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise alleging abuse of dominant position and cartelization
  • Section 3 & 4 provide against any agreement which is likely to cause appreciable adverse effect on the competition within India & another which states that no enterprise or group shall abuse its dominant position

APPELLANT’s CONTENTIONS:

  • That the CCI had decided to examine the facts purely from the stand point as to whether the alleged Act constituted anti-competitive practice contravening s3 and s4 of the act.
  • The High Court erred in holding that the order passed under section 26(1) was an order resulting in serious adverse consequences merely because the CCI had granted a hearing.
  • The order of CCI was not perverse and the High Court erred in giving findings on merits. The High Court erroneously exercised writ jurisdiction.

RESPONDENT CONTENTIONS:

  • The TRAI Act, being a special law, ousts the jurisdiction of CCI to examine the telecom sector.
  • That TRAI under Section 11(1)(a)(iv) was to facilitate competition which was purely recommendatory in nature and not part of regulatory function of the TRAI
  • That the TRAI Act is a complete code and the jurisdiction of CCI is totally ousted,

JUDGMENT:

The SC did not grant leave to petitioners and upheld the decision of The High Court. The SC recognized that the TRAI is sector specific regulator and has expertise to deal with the issues in the telecom sector, which arise from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. However the jurisdiction of the CCI is not outset completely with regard to telecom sector but the CCIs jurisdiction is pushed out to the later phase, once the issue is decided by the TRAI.

 
"Loved reading this piece by Nihal Thareja?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 814




Comments