The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has held that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), which holds just 2.09 per cent share of the Indian telecom market, cannot be considered a dominant player and therefore could not have abused a 'dominant' position under the Competition Act, 2002 [CCL Vs BSNL].
A four-member bench led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, with Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag, made the observation in an order passed on October 7, by which it dismissed certain allegations made by CCL Optoelectronics Private Limited against BSNL.
The dispute arose from a tender floated by BSNL on December 12, 2024, on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for the supply of 2 lakh splice closures for optical fiber cables. The tender prescribed various eligibility criteria, including a minimum average annual turnover of ₹664 lakh over three years. It also provided exemptions for MSMEs and startups from turnover and experience requirements, subject to quality and technical compliance.
CCL Optoelectronics, an MSME registered under the Udyam scheme, claimed exemption and submitted its certificate. It also furnished details of having supplied more than 2 lakh units annually to telecom majors such as Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel, Tata Communications and Tata Tele Business.
Despite this, on March 3, 2025, the company was disqualified through a portal report that cited a non-fulfillment of “Past Performance” criteria. According to BSNL, bidders had to show evidence of having supplied 30,000 splice joint closures (SJCs) previously – a requirement CCL (the informant before CCI) allegedly failed to meet.
The informant alleged that BSNL deliberately introduced contradictory tender conditions to exclude it and favour three companies – R&M India Pvt. Ltd. (L1), Ampson Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (L2), and Nav Fibro Plastics (L3). It contended that while it had been found eligible in the 2023–24 tender round, it was arbitrarily disqualified in 2024–25 despite improved credentials.
CCL Optoelectronics also argued that the removal of “public listed companies” from the experience criteria restricted participation, and that BSNL unilaterally reduced past performance benchmarks from 30 per cent to 15 per cent without proper notice. It claimed these actions constituted restrictive and monopolistic trade practices.
The informant sought interim relief under Section 33 to restrain BSNL from proceeding with the tender procurement. The final reliefs sought by CCL from the CCI under Section 27 included the cancellation of the bidding process, the initiation of an inquiry into BSNL’s practices, and the imposition of a penalty on BSNL of up to 10 per cent of its turnover, as well as a fresh issue of tender.
To examine the allegations levelled by CCL against BSNL, the CCI first defined the relevant market as the “market for telecommunication services in India.” It noted that Reliance Jio held 40.07 per cent of the market share, that Bharti Airtel held 32.01 per cent, Vodafone Idea held 14.37 per cent, and Bharti Hexacom had 2.41 per cent, while BSNL’s share was just 2.09 per cent.
“Based on the market share of the OP (BSNL) in the delineated relevant market, the Commission is of the view that the OP does not hold a dominant position in the relevant market within the meaning of Section 4 of the (Competition) Act,” the CCI concluded.
The CCI added that any objections to the tender terms must be raised through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal.
“Mere dissatisfaction with tender terms or with the rejection of bid cannot lead to a presumption of imposition of unfair or discriminatory conditions and abuse of dominance,” the CCI's order stated.
It further observed that the allegations regarding the removal of “Public Listed Companies” from experience criteria in the tender conditions and changes in technical specifications were matters of procurement policy and not competition concerns.
Finding no prima facie case under Section 4, the CCI directed that the matter be closed under Section 26(2) and also disposed of the request for interim relief under Section 33 of the Act.
[Read Judgment]