Keeping up with Competition - January 2026
A monthly newsletter by Axiom5
Welcome to the 27th edition of Keeping Up with Competition, and our first edition for 2026. In this post, we highlight the key developments in Indian competition law and policy in December 2025. This month saw important appellate guidance on the scope of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigative powers. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) also issued a clarification order in the WhatsApp-Meta case, resolving ambiguity on the continued applicability of transparency and consent obligations. The CCI also issued two significant orders - one discusses permissible conduct under the aegis of trade associations and evidentiary standards in CCI inquiries, while the other clarified how competition law applies when state departments discharge their statutory functions.
The division bench of the Kerala High Court upholds CCI’s jurisdiction in Jiostar abuse of dominance case (see here)
The Kerala High Court’s decision in Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India revisits the long-running tension between sectoral regulation and competition law enforcement.
This writ appeal arises from an order of the Single Judge bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing a writ petition that had challenged the CCI’s order directing an investigation into Jiostar’s alleged abuse of dominance in the television broadcasting market in Kerala. The complainant, Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. (ADNPL), a leading multi-system operator (MSO), alleged that Jiostar and its group entities extended discriminatory discounts and preferential commercial terms to a rival distributor, Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. (KCCL). These benefits, structured through marketing agreements and promotional payments, were alleged to contravene the discount caps under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Interconnection Regulations, 2017, resulting in denial of market access, subscriber migration, and foreclosure, thereby also raising concerns under the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act).
In appeal, Jiostar contested the CCI’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute fell squarely within the regulatory domain of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Relying on CCI v. Bharti Airtel, it contended that jurisdictional and technical issues under sectoral regulations must first be determined by TRAI before the CCI could examine competition law implications, and that the investigation order, passed without hearing, caused serious commercial prejudice.
The Court noted that Bharti Airtel does not lay down a blanket rule barring CCI intervention wherever a sectoral regulator exists. Rather, the requirement of prior sectoral determination applies only in cases where the facts relate to a specific technical or involving technical incompatibilities or regulatory dependencies. In contrast, allegations of sham arrangements, preferential treatment, and market foreclosure can be independently examined by the CCI, with inter-regulatory coordination facilitated under the Competition Act.
In our 2025 year-end post, we noted that testing the CCI’s jurisdiction was a recurring theme, a trend set to continue in 2026. Appellate and constitutional courts are increasingly signalling that competition law can operate alongside sectoral regulations, aligning with the government’s proposed “whole-of-government” framework. While jurisdictional clarifications may slow enforcement in the near term, the focus on inter-regulatory engagement points to a shift toward coordinated, harmonised oversight across sectors.
Jiostar has approached the Supreme Court contesting the Kerala High Court’s decision. We will closely watch how the apex court addresses the matter and continue to track developments as the case unfolds.
NCLAT clarifies the scope of its decision in WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms’ appeals (see here)
In its order dated 18 November 2024 (CCI Order), the CCI imposed a five-year prohibition on data sharing for advertising purposes between WhatsApp and other Meta group companies. Alongside this restriction, WhatsApp and Meta were directed to adhere to mandatory transparency requirements and to provide users with an opt-out option for any data sharing undertaken for non-advertising purposes. The CCI Order further provided that, once the five-year period elapsed, these transparency and opt-out obligations would also extend to data sharing for advertising purposes.
Subsequently, the NCLAT, in its judgment dated 4 November 2025 (NCLAT Judgment), set aside the data sharing ban imposed under the CCI Order. However, the judgment inadvertently also set aside the mandate requiring compliance with the transparency and opt-out obligations.
This error was addressed through a subsequent clarification order (Clarification Order), which restores and clarifies the position. Under the Clarification Order, Meta and WhatsApp are required to comply with the transparency and opt-out obligations for both advertising and non-advertising purposes, within a period of three months, ending on 15 March 2026.
The CCI cautions Maharashtra liquor trade associations and issues a cease-and-desist direction in relation to cartel conduct (see here)
In an order dated 11 December 2025, the CCI held that three liquor trade associations, namely the Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association, the Pune District Wine Merchants Association, and the Association of Progressive Liquor Vendors1, had cartelized in contravention of the Competition Act.
The core issue was whether the associations transgressed their legitimate role of industry advocacy by actively dictating commercial terms to liquor manufacturers, thereby engaging in cartelization in violation of Section 3(3).
The CCI’s investigation revealed that the associations systematically issued circulars, emails, and WhatsApp directives to their members, mandating specific retail margins, cash discounts, and credit periods. It rejected the argument that these were industry standards or recommendations, and found that these were enforced rules rather than voluntary guidelines. The CCI held that distinct retailers must independently determine their own commercial variables based on their individual business economics. By collectively fixing these cost components, the associations effectively determined the sale price of liquor products, resulting in indirect price-fixing, which contravened Section 3(3)(a).
The CCI also noted that the associations mandated that new manufacturers must obtain “No Objection Certificates” (NOCs) and pay “Introduction Charges” or “Donations” to the association funds before launching new brands or schemes. Manufacturers who refused to comply faced threats of collective boycott. By controlling which products could enter the market based on the payment of arbitrary fees, the associations limited the supply of goods and restricted consumer choice, in clear violation of Section 3(3)(b), which prohibits agreements that limit or control production and supply.
Procedurally, this order raises a unique issue regarding the admissibility of video evidence. The informant sought confidentiality over its identity, which the CCI granted. The associations demanded access to the video evidence submitted by the informant through the confidentiality ring mechanism, to prepare their defense. This concern was compounded by the fact that the witness connected to the video declined to submit to cross-examination despite being afforded an opportunity. However, the CCI denied this request on the grounds that the video revealed the identity of the Informant. The CCI ruled in favour of protecting the informant’s identity, and held that excluding the video did not violate the principles of natural justice because the finding of contravention was sufficiently supported by other independent documentary evidence, such as minutes of meetings and correspondence.
Ultimately, the CCI issued a cease-and-desist order against the associations, and held certain office bearers personally liable under Section 48 of the Competition Act. However, it did not impose any penalty, on account of mitigating factors such as their first-time offender status, non-profit character, welfare activities for small retailers, and the prior discontinuation of the NOC practice. Although not cited, the CCI’s approach is in line with its Penalty Guidelines, issued in 2024.
The CCI dismisses case against Haryana Development Authorities (see here)
The CCI closed a case filed by real estate developers against the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) and the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). The dispute arose from the levy of development charges without corresponding infrastructure delivery, with developers alleging that they were being made to pay without receiving timely development in return.
The information was filed by ILD Housing Projects Private Limited and the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI-NCR). They accused the DTCP and HSVP of abusing their dominant position in the market for development and infrastructure in Haryana. The developers challenged what they described as one-sided and unfair terms in Letters of Intent and Bilateral Agreements, including the obligation to pay interest on delayed payments while being denied any remedy for delays in infrastructure provision, and the lack of any scope to negotiate these terms.
The CCI, however, dismissed the allegations and closed the case. First, the CCI declined to visit the legality of External Development Charges (EDC) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC). Relying on the 2015 judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in M/s VPN Buildtech Pvt Ltd. vs State of Haryana, the CCI noted that the obligation to pay EDC exists independently of whether external development works have been completed, and that penal interest on delayed payments is valid irrespective of infrastructure status.
This stance is particularly noteworthy when viewed against the CCI’s earlier jurisprudence, where it has not hesitated to examine conduct for competition law violations even if such conduct is otherwise legally valid or statutorily sanctioned. In this instance, however, the CCI appeared to consciously exercise restraint, signalling a reluctance to allow competition law proceedings to become a parallel forum for reopening issues already conclusively determined by constitutional courts.
More importantly, the CCI held that the actions of the DTCP and HSVP were statutory in nature, not commercial. It clarified that the issuance of licenses and land acquisition are functions performed under law, and falls outside the scope of the Competition Act’s scrutiny.
Another trade association, Pimpri Chinchwad Liquor Dealers Association was not held liable, as the investigation found it to be “defunct” and no conclusive findings could be drawn against it.