The Supreme Court on Monday asked Google whether it will put in place same regime in India as it has in Europe with respect to Android mobile devices market. .The Court was hearing an application filed by Google seeking a stay on a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order imposing a ₹1,337 crore penalty on the tech giant for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystemA bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala raised the query to Google after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman submitted on behalf of CCI that Google had complied with a similar order passed by European Commission. "The contention that they cannot comply with 90 days deadline is wrong since similar deadline has been adhered to in European Union and they have been held to violate dominant position. How can Indian consumers be differentiated as against the European Consumer by Google," the ASG submitted.When CJI Chandrachud asked whether the CCI directions were consistent with the steps taken by Google, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Google, responded in the negative and said that facts have been misrepresented. The CJI then said,"Will Google practice the same regime in place in India as you have it in Europe? Please reflect on this and come back."The matter will be heard again on January 18, Wednesday. .The Court was hearing Google's appeal against the NCLAT order refusing interim relief of stay on the CCI order of October 2022 that had penalised Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android mobile device ecosystem. Apart from imposing the penalty, the CCI had directed Google to cease and desist from participating in anti-competitive practices and directed it to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.On January 6, the NCLAT had refused to grant interim relief to Google in its appeal against the CCI order, and instead listed the matter for final hearing on April 3.The NCLAT opined that since there was no urgency was shown in filing the appeal, Google could not be allowed to insist on interim relief.NCLAT also directed Google to deposit 10 per cent of the ₹1337.76 crore fine amount.This led to the present appeal before the apex court. Appearing for Google, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued,"Learned judge (of NCLAT) records that since matter is in April, there is no need for interim directions. Android is world's best ecosystem and these directions are extraordinary. My proprietary API is to be compulsorily shared with ones who don't comply with Android requirements.".The top court today said that it would consider sending the stay application filed by Google, back to NCLAT for fresh determination."We will send it back to NCLAT and ask them to deal with the application for stay."The Court, however, did not pass any order but kept the matter for further hearing on January 18, Wednesday."We will hear this case on Wednesday," the bench said..Note: An initial version of this story said the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to NCLAT. The error is regretted.
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Google whether it will put in place same regime in India as it has in Europe with respect to Android mobile devices market. .The Court was hearing an application filed by Google seeking a stay on a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order imposing a ₹1,337 crore penalty on the tech giant for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystemA bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala raised the query to Google after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman submitted on behalf of CCI that Google had complied with a similar order passed by European Commission. "The contention that they cannot comply with 90 days deadline is wrong since similar deadline has been adhered to in European Union and they have been held to violate dominant position. How can Indian consumers be differentiated as against the European Consumer by Google," the ASG submitted.When CJI Chandrachud asked whether the CCI directions were consistent with the steps taken by Google, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Google, responded in the negative and said that facts have been misrepresented. The CJI then said,"Will Google practice the same regime in place in India as you have it in Europe? Please reflect on this and come back."The matter will be heard again on January 18, Wednesday. .The Court was hearing Google's appeal against the NCLAT order refusing interim relief of stay on the CCI order of October 2022 that had penalised Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android mobile device ecosystem. Apart from imposing the penalty, the CCI had directed Google to cease and desist from participating in anti-competitive practices and directed it to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.On January 6, the NCLAT had refused to grant interim relief to Google in its appeal against the CCI order, and instead listed the matter for final hearing on April 3.The NCLAT opined that since there was no urgency was shown in filing the appeal, Google could not be allowed to insist on interim relief.NCLAT also directed Google to deposit 10 per cent of the ₹1337.76 crore fine amount.This led to the present appeal before the apex court. Appearing for Google, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued,"Learned judge (of NCLAT) records that since matter is in April, there is no need for interim directions. Android is world's best ecosystem and these directions are extraordinary. My proprietary API is to be compulsorily shared with ones who don't comply with Android requirements.".The top court today said that it would consider sending the stay application filed by Google, back to NCLAT for fresh determination."We will send it back to NCLAT and ask them to deal with the application for stay."The Court, however, did not pass any order but kept the matter for further hearing on January 18, Wednesday."We will hear this case on Wednesday," the bench said..Note: An initial version of this story said the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to NCLAT. The error is regretted.
