Between deference and discipline: The courts’ evolving relationship with the CCI

The year 2025 was significant for Indian competition law, introducing several key developments. Through a series of decisions, the higher judiciary articulated a clearer framework governing the relationship between the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and other regulators, the standard of economic analysis required for antitrust findings and the procedural limits of investigative powers.

Collectively, these decisions signal a move towards structured oversight, balancing the CCI’s role as the primary regulator with increased judicial scrutiny. This trend ensures that, as India solidifies its position as a major global economy, the CCI's enforcement actions remain evidence-based, procedurally robust, and appropriately calibrated.

A consistent issue addressed by courts in 2025 concerns the extent to which the Competition Act, 2002 operates alongside other specialised statutes. The 2025 rulings effectively transformed the CCI into a coordinated partner within the Indian regulatory architecture, emphasising comity among regulators and, in some places, preserving the CCI’s ability to investigate alleged anti-competitive conduct.

The intellectual property domain provided a partial resolution to this jurisdictional conflict in 2025. This stemmed from the 2023 Delhi High Court ruling in Ericsson/Monsanto v. CCI, which held that the CCI lacked the power to adjudicate disputes over excessive or unreasonable royalty rates or terms for patent licensing. The Court's rationale was that the Patents Act, 1970, being the specific legislation governing patent rights and licensing, offers a dedicated remedy under Chapter XVI of the Patents Act, which must be pursued before the Controller of Patents. Although the CCI challenged this decision, the Supreme Court in 2025 chose not to definitively resolve the jurisdictional question of law. Consequently, the legal position reverted to the 2023 Delhi High Court’s view in Ericsson.

This stance was subsequently reflected in the 2025 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Swapan Dey v. Vifor International (2025), where the NCLAT, citing the decisions by the High Court and Supreme Court, concluded that the CCI is precluded from investigating issues falling under the exclusive domain of the Patents Act. The CCI has appealed the NCLAT’s decision before the Supreme Court as of January 2026.

In the telecom and broadcasting sectors, the courts adopted a rule of statutory sequencing rather than absolute ouster. This approach, rooted in the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in CCI v. Bharti Airtel (2018), requires the CCI to defer its inquiry until a sectoral regulator [like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)] determines certain "jurisdictional facts".

In late 2025, the Kerala High Court in Jiostar India Pvt Ltd v. CCI (2025) (Jiostar) clarified that this deferral is not a generic bar. The Court distinguished the case from Bharti Airtel, where allegations of collusion over points of interconnection were already being adjudicated by TRAI, which possessed the specific technical mandate to decide such facts. In Jiostar, however, the Court "green-lighted" the CCI's investigation into discriminatory pricing and "sham" marketing agreements because there was no underlying jurisdictional fact currently pending before TRAI. The judgment reaffirmed that while TRAI regulates technical and licensing standards, the CCI remains the primary authority for assessing abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive conduct across sectors. In January 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision by dismissing Jiostar’s special leave petition.

In the insolvency context, the Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation v. Girish Sriram Juneja (2025) addressed whether prior competition approval was mandatory for combinations embedded in resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Interpreting the proviso to Section 31(4) of the IBC, the Court held that CCI approval must precede approval by the Committee of Creditors. The ruling clarified statutory sequencing and rejected the argument that insolvency timelines could override merger control requirements.

A second theme emerging from appellate scrutiny is the insistence on economic evidence demonstrating actual or probable harm to competition, particularly in abuse of dominance cases.

This approach was articulated by the Supreme Court in CCI v. Schott Glass (2025). The case concerned allegations of margin squeeze and exclusionary rebate schemes under Section 4 of the Competition Act. The Court held that the existence of dominance and the presence of differential pricing structures are insufficient by themselves to establish abuse. The decision clarified that the CCI must satisfy a two-fold inquiry: first, that the practice falls within the descriptive clauses of Section 4(2); and second, that it actually results in, or is likely to result in, competition harm. The Court emphasised that the CCI cannot merely assume such effects from high market shares or the form of the conduct. Instead, it must provide concrete, credible evidence of foreclosure, exclusion, or demonstrable injury to the competitive process. This judgment marked a definitive move away from "form-based" presumptions toward a rigorous, economics-oriented standard that requires a balancing test of objective justifications against proven or probable harm.

Judicial scrutiny in digital market cases during 2025 focused less on findings of dominance (perhaps a departure from the “gatekeeper” theory) and more on the proportionality and tailoring of remedies.

In the Alphabet Inc. v. CCI (2025) appeal before the NCLAT, while the finding of dominance was upheld, the NCLAT examined both penalty computation and the nature of behavioural remedies imposed by the CCI. On penalties, the NCLAT held that fines must be linked to relevant turnover connected to the infringing conduct and reduced the quantum accordingly. Importantly, the Tribunal reversed some of the behavioural remedies imposed by the CCI, emphasising that remedial directions must be narrowly tailored to address the specific competitive harm identified and should not impose obligations unrelated to the impugned conduct.

This reasoning assumed greater prominence in appellate scrutiny of the CCI’s order in the WhatsApp LLC v. CCI (2025). While the findings relating to market power and data-related concerns were not displaced, the NCLAT set aside certain behavioural remedies. These include a ban on data sharing between entities in the Meta group. The NCLAT noted that the data sharing ban was not proportionate to the anti-competitive harm.

The decisions underscored that remedial measures in digital ecosystems must remain confined to the specific conduct under examination.

Courts in 2025 also examined the scope of the CCI’s investigative powers, particularly those exercised by the Director General (DG).

The Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh Gahlaut v. CCI (2025) intervened on the issue of individual procedural protections. The Court temporarily halted summons issued to senior executives, clarifying that personal jeopardy should not precede a determination on foundational jurisdictional or constitutional challenges concerning the CCI General Regulations.

Key legal challenges with respect to CCI’s enforcement powers are underway in the Delhi High Court, with cases such as Madison Communications v. CCI (2025) and Maharashtra Seamless v. CCI (2025). These cases center on the limits of the DG’s investigative authority, specifically addressing the right of parties under investigation to legal counsel during DG depositions and the procedures governing search and seizure operations. The rulings in these cases will be pivotal in defining the boundaries of the CCI’s enforcement actions and ensuring they align with principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards for individuals under investigation.

Apple has challenged the constitutionality of CCI’s power to impose penalties on an enterprise’ global turnover, on the ground that the same violates the principle of proportionality. This challenge is significant, especially considering the Supreme Court's prior clarification in Excel Crop Care v. CCI (2017) that penalties must be linked to the relevant turnover connected to the contravention. While the outcome in these proceedings remains pending, the debate itself illustrates the judiciary’s evolving role. Courts are not questioning the need for strong enforcement, particularly against large technology firms, but whether the tools used by CCI are calibrated to the address the alleged harm.

Appellate courts also clarified that where the underlying dispute forming the basis of a competition inquiry was resolved through private settlement, the factual foundation of the proceedings would cease to exist. In JCB India Ltd v. CCI (2024), the Delhi High Court quashed the CCI’s investigation after the parties settled their dispute through court-mandated mediation, holding that once the substratum of the proceedings is extinguished, continuation of the inquiry is not warranted.

In 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed the Delhi High Court’s 2024 decision, when it dismissed the CCI’s special leave petition, while keeping questions of law open.

However, a vital distinction must be made between in personam settlements (between two parties) and the CCI’s in rem mandate (protecting the market at large). While a private settlement through mediation can lead to the quashing of an investigation, the CCI’s new Settlement Regulations (2024) and Commitment Regulations (2024) provide a formal path for resolution. Unlike private settlements, this framework allows the CCI to secure market-wide remedies and behavioral commitments even if the information itself is withdrawn. For businesses, this means that while private settlement is helpful, it is not an embargo against regulatory scrutiny if the CCI perceives a systemic threat to competition.

The judicial developments of 2025 reflect a significant phase of structural maturity in Indian competition law. While the initial decade of the Competition Act was characterised by the CCI asserting its authority across diverse sectors, the current trend reflects a period of necessary calibration. By insisting on effects-based evidence, procedural discipline and jurisdictional respect, the higher judiciary is not weakening the regulator; rather, it is ensuring that the CCI’s orders are robust, sustainable and aligned with global standards of due process.

The 2025 landscape suggests a maturing ecosystem where the CCI remains a powerful regulator, but one that operates with increased legal precision, balancing aggressive enforcement in digital markets with the constitutional mandates of fairness and proportionality.

Ravi Gangal is a Senior Associate and Divyanshu Dembi is an Associate at Axiom5.