Axiom5's 2025 Year-in-Review: A year of slow but steady enforcement

A recap of the key themes from Indian competition law in 2025 and a prognosis for the year ahead

2025 was a year of mixed results for Indian competition law and policy. While the Competition Commission of India (CCI) made headway (and headlines) with its enforcement orders, AI market study and the operationalisation of its new enforcement toolkit, it also faced headwinds in appellate courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court on substantive and procedural issues in its enforcement of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act).

In this edition of our newsletter, we look back on 2025 and highlight 4 key themes in competition law enforcement that could have significant implications for 2026 and years to come.

Theme 1 - Regulating digital markets: adjudication over regulation

Protecting competition in AI with “soft” law

The CCI’s AI market study was a clear win, showing a measured, innovation-supporting approach. It proposes a self-audit mechanism for transparency and accountability, reserving the right to attribute liability for AI misuse.

Revisit our blog post on the AI market study here.

The strategic pause with ex-ante digital markets regulation

Following the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report in August, India paused the Draft Digital Competition Bill (DCB) for more evidence-based study. This pause may be informed by the challenging implementation of Europe’s Digital Markets Act.

Axiom5’s analysis of the Standing Committee Report is here.

Meanwhile, the CCI continued ex-post case-by-case monitoring, upholding business justifications like platform security, delisting harmful apps (subject to inquiry), and setting defaults (with easy opt-out), suggesting that one-size-fits-all ex-ante rules may not suit Indian markets.

Capacity building - the need of the hour

The Standing Committee also noted the CCI’s limited funds and the need to enhance its technical expertise as key constraints. The CCI is addressing this through stakeholder engagement, a proposed AI Think Tank, and continuous collaboration with other government agencies such as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to improve regulatory coordination.

Key takeaways: On the AI front, the CCI will trust companies to self-assess and comply, but reserves the right to attribute liability to those who deploy, design, and profit from the misuse of AI. For tech companies, it is as important as ever to document commercially sound justifications for their business practices, while remaining mindful of the guardrails of competition law principles.

Theme 2 - Testing out the new regulatory toolkit

Settlements and Commitments

The CCI issued its first settlement order (Google Android TV) and is negotiating commitments in another case. This mechanism aims to resolve inquiries swiftly, correct market distortions (especially in digital markets), and rationalize regulatory resources, countering long litigation timelines.

The May 2025 edition of our newsletter covering the CCI’s settlement order is available here.

Key takeaway: With ongoing digital market cases, settlements and commitments offer companies a strategic tool to resolve inquiries and work with the CCI to implement corrective measures.

Exacting scrutiny through merger control

The CCI clarified its revamped merger control regime with non-binding guidance in May 2025, emphasising rigorous interpretation of the Deal Value Threshold, exemptions, overlap mapping, and the material influence threshold.

Axiom5’s detailed analysis of the Combination FAQs is here.

Enforcement was aggressive: Goldman Sachs was penalised for acquiring “information rights” (deemed strategic interest), Matrix Pharma for altering transaction structure post-approval, and Carlyle for non-disclosure of affiliate overlaps in a Green Channel filing.

Conversely, the CCI showed nuance by clearing the Bharat Forge / AAM India deal after a Phase II review, accepting “hold separate” commitments. A proactive approach to M&A scrutiny, particularly in digital markets, is expected in 2026.

Key takeaways: Investors and transacting parties must meticulously assess notification requirements, given the CCI’s proactive scrutiny. Strict interpretations of “control” and expanded “affiliate” definitions demand thorough due diligence. The CCI has shown that the risk of incurring penalties for flouting notification requirements is real.

Theme 3 - Substantive and procedural rigour from Appellate Courts

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court and NCLAT, tested the CCI’s application of the Competition Act, reinforcing legal guardrails.

Mandating the “Effects Test”

The Supreme Court mandated the CCI to show actual or potential anti-competitive effects in abuse of dominance cases (Section 4) in Schott Glass, raising the evidentiary bar for the CCI.

NCLAT reins in digital markets remedies

In the Google Play and WhatsApp Privacy Policy cases, the NCLAT limited the CCI’s remedial power by applying proportionality. In Google Play, the NCLAT rejected forward-looking remedies akin to ex-ante rules and reduced the penalty by 75% using the “relevant turnover” principle. In WhatsApp, the NCLAT struck down the 5-year ban on data sharing between WhatsApp and Meta, while upholding the penalty and the CCI’s jurisdiction over data privacy as a competition issue, requiring future data sharing to include disclosure, opt-outs, and purpose-limitation.

Procedural safeguards through writ challenges

While not unusual, various High Courts have stepped in to safeguard parties’ procedural rights in CCI inquiries in 2025. The Delhi High Court (DHC) is set to hear challenges regarding procedural violations in dawn raids and DG depositions, halting underlying inquiries.¹ Crucially, the DHC will hear Apple’s challenge² to the constitutional validity of the CCI’s expanded power to compute penalties based on global turnover, which, following the 2024 Penalty Guidelines, poses a significant financial risk for global companies.

Key takeaways: The impact of appellate review that emphasises procedural safeguards will likely translate into more rigorous inquiries by the CCI. While this could lengthen inquiry timelines in the short term, it could result in more robust enforcement orders that better withstand appellate scrutiny, going forward.

Theme 4 - Testing the boundaries of CCI’s jurisdiction

Patents Act v. the Competition Act

The Supreme Court abstained from resolving the jurisdictional conflict between the Patents Act and the Competition Act in Ericsson, leaving the Delhi High Court’s 2023 ruling - that the Patents Act prevails over the Competition Act for the exercise of patent rights - in effect.

We analysed this jurisdictional tussle in our September blog post and considered the incentives for “strategic litigation” here.

Immediately after, the NCLAT observed in Vifor Pharma that the CCI lacked jurisdiction over a patented drug distribution issue, although this specific patent did not fall under the DHC’s “complete code” of Chapter XVI of the Patents Act. This offers the CCI a chance to seek the Supreme Court’s clarity on its jurisdiction for patent disputes not governed by compulsory licensing rules.

“Concurrent” jurisdiction with other sectoral regulators

In contrast, the Kerala High Court affirmed the CCI’s power to regulate competition issues in the telecom sector, and the NCLAT affirmed its “concurrent” jurisdiction over competition implications of data privacy (WhatsApp). This aligns with the government’s proposed “whole-of-government” framework for digital markets and AI, signalling a move towards harmonised regulation.

Key takeaways: As the regulatory framework evolves, the CCI and government must balance effective enforcement with minimising compliance burden. While jurisdictional boundaries are being settled and could mean another year of slow enforcement, inter-regulatory engagement signals a move towards harmonisation.

Prognosis for 2026: A more complex compliance landscape

The outlook for 2026 points toward an increasingly sophisticated compliance environment, shaped by evolving judicial interpretations and a demand for greater economic rigour. While appellate courts continue to monitor the CCI’s discretion in enforcement, the regulator has modernised its toolkit, demonstrating a growing capacity for nuanced analysis and rigorous, case-specific enforcement. For businesses, while substantive defences are becoming more viable, they are also facing heightened scrutiny (particularly in merger control). The year ahead requires vigilant engagement: understanding not just the letter of the law, but the CCI’s specific evidentiary demands and the strategic value of early intervention to pre-empt formal enforcement.

On the global stage, competition law is being redefined by a strategic shift in political economy. Emerging markets are increasingly moderating enforcement to shield domestic businesses from over-regulation, while simultaneously de-escalating tensions with the US to avoid punitive retaliatory measures. By pivoting away from aggressive regulatory intervention, regulators are prioritising long-term economic sovereignty and diplomatic stability over technical market corrections.

Ultimately, India is charting its own middle path by tempering regulatory vigilance with pro-growth and pro-innovation pragmatism. This signals a move towards a more nuanced strategy tailored to India’s unique national interests.

1. Madison Communications v. CCI, W.P.(C) 15427/2025 and Maharashtra Seamless v. CCI, W.P.(C) 17348/2025.

2. Apple Inc v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 17934/2025.