Fairness is lacking: Delhi High Court questions CCI proceedings in case against logistics companies

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was conducting its proceedings fairly in a complaint filed by the Federation of Indian Publishers against logistics companies [Federation of Indian Publishers Vs Competition Commission of India]

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation during the hearing of a plea moved by the federation. The petition raised grievances over cross-examination before the Director General (DG), denial of records and the action taken against advocates for alleged misconduct.

"Kind of fairness you personally show in these proceedings, that is lacking perhaps before the CCI. We wish we are wrong," Chief Justice Upadhyay remarked.

Responding to the Court's observations, advocate Samar Bansal, who regularly appears for the anti-trust regulator, said,

"I am an impassionate regulator at the end of the day."

CCI is currently investigating alleged anti-competitive practices in the logistics and courier services sector. The probe was initiated on a complaint by the Federation of Indian Publishers.

The CCI Director General is conducting an investigation including recording statements of witnesses on oath and permitting cross-examination as part of the enquiry process.

However, the federation in the plea before the High Court challenged the manner in which the DG and the CCI are conducting the proceedings, contending that procedural safeguards are being diluted.

The controversy arose in the context of Regulations 45 and 46 of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024, which govern the conduct of proceedings before the Commission and the consequences of alleged misconduct during such proceedings.

During the hearing today, CCI counsel made a categorical statement that the Commission was not taking any action against advocates on the basis of two interlocutory applications alleging misconduct during cross-examination.

Bansal urged the Court to record his statement, asserting that:

“Insofar as we are concerned, the chapter is closed… there is no factual foundation for these so-called challenges to Regulations 46, 47, etc.”

The CCI counsel added that the regulator does not have the power to take disciplinary action for any misconduct and that at best, any grievance could be referred to the concerned professional regulator.

It was further contended that the issue of misconduct was being raised on a case-to-case basis and that the two applications filed by witnesses were not being taken forward.

The federation, however, argued that the dispute was not academic and continued to have real consequences.

The Court was told that the DG had orally conveyed directions - stated to be emanating from the Commission - requiring the federation to confine cross-examination strictly to the statements of witnesses, without any written order or paper trail.

A counsel for the federation submitted that such oral directions were effectively being enforced through Regulations 45 and 46, resulting in the truncation of cross-examination.

It was contended that the federation cannot be compelled to proceed with cross-examination without being supplied the underlying material and without clarity on the basis on which restrictions were being imposed.

The federation also complained that the CCI had refused to supply copies of applications and orders relating to alleged misconduct and instead directed the complainant to inspect records under the General Regulations.

It was argued that inspection alone was insufficient, particularly when the applications and orders could affect the rights of the petitioner and its counsel.

The bench emphasised while the CCI can work towards time-bound disposal of competition cases, such efficiency should not mean that parties are asked to proceed without clarity on the process or access to material.

The case will be heard next in January 2026.

Federation of Indian Publishers was represented by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak along with advocate Rahul Goel from AnantLaw.