Keeping up with Competition - November 2025
A monthly newsletter by Axiom5
Welcome to the 26th edition of Keeping Up with Competition, where we bring you key highlights shaping India’s antitrust and regulatory landscape this month. October 2025 saw significant developments across the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and the Supreme Court of India (SC)—each contributing to the evolving contours of competition enforcement and jurisprudence.
From the SC’s order permitting the withdrawal of Asian Paints’ challenge to a CCI probe, to the CCI’s closure of an MSME’s complaint against Google, and the NCLAT’s clarification on the interface between patent and competition law, this month underscored the maturing balance between statutory interpretation, regulatory discretion, and judicial oversight. The CCI also issued important clarifications on intra-group exemptions under the Competition (Criteria of Exemption of Combination) Rules, 2024, while releasing its much-anticipated Market Study on Artificial Intelligence, signalling a shift toward cooperative and capacity-building approaches in emerging technology markets.
Here is a summary of the most critical developments this month.
Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Asian Paints’ Challenge to CCI Probe (See orders of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court)
In October 2025, Asian Paints Limited (APL) withdrew its special leave petition (SLP) from the Supreme Court. This SLP challenged a Bombay High Court (BHC) judgment that had upheld the CCI’s decision to investigate allegations of abuse of dominance made by Grasim Industries’ (Grasim) paints division, Birla Opus.
The dispute arose when Grasim approached the CCI in December 2024, alleging that APL had engaged in exclusionary conduct—pressuring dealers not to stock Birla Opus products, restricting access to logistics and warehousing, and offering selective incentives to secure exclusivity. On 1 July 2025, the CCI directed its Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation.
APL challenged this order before the BHC, arguing that the complaint was substantially similar to a prior information filed by JSW Paints in 2019, which the CCI had investigated and dismissed in 2022. It contended that Section 26(2-A) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) barred re-inquiry into “the same or substantially the same facts and issues,” and that APL was denied a hearing before the CCI formed its prima facie opinion.
The BHC, in its judgment pronounced on 11 September 2025, dismissed APL’s petition. It held that the functions performed by the CCI under Section 26(1) (directing an investigation) are administrative and preparatory in nature, not judicial. Consequently, the BHC ruled that APL had no inherent right to a hearing at this prima facie stage of inquiry. The BHC also held that Section 26(2-A), inserted by the 2023 amendment, is a clarificatory and enabling provision intended to avoid duplication of effort. The BHC concluded that Section 26(2-A) neither creates a jurisdictional embargo on the CCI, nor does it obligate the CCI to record reasons for not closing a case when it decides to direct a prima facie investigation.
APL challenged this ruling before the SC. The SLP was taken up for hearing on 13 October 2025, before a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. APL submitted that Grasim’s complaint mirrored the earlier JSW Paints case and pointed out that repeated probes threatened the company’s reputation. The SC, however, declined to intervene. After brief arguments, the petition was withdrawn, leaving the BHC ruling undisturbed.
For practitioners, the case provides the first judicial interpretation of Section 26(2-A) after its introduction through the 2023 amendment. The BHC’s reading affirms the CCI’s discretion to investigate successive complaints where circumstances evolve or new entrants allege fresh exclusionary conduct. The outcome underscores that while the amendment aims to prevent repetitive inquiries, it does not immunize enterprises from renewed scrutiny if there is a change in the facts or when market conditions or complainants change.
CCI closes MSME’s complaint against Google on developer account termination (See CCI’s order here.)
The CCI recently dismissed allegations of abuse of dominance against Google LLC (Google) made by Liberty Infospace Private Limited (Liberty Infospace / Informant). Liberty Infospace, an MSME developer of a human resource management application named EasyDo Tasks–HRMS Payroll AI, challenged Google’s termination of its developer account on the Play Store. The CCI closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, finding no prima facie violation of Section 4.
Liberty Infospace alleged that Google’s unilateral termination of its developer account was arbitrary and disproportionate. It claimed that the termination breached Clause 10.3 of the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement (GPDDA), which required prior notice, and that Google’s reliance on automated enforcement and pre-formatted appeal processes denied it a fair hearing. The Informant argued that this conduct constituted denial of market access under Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(b)(i)–(ii) of the Competition Act and deterred smaller developers from entering the market. It also alleged discriminatory treatment compared to EU developers, who benefit from enhanced redressal mechanisms under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
On being asked to clarify its global redressal framework by the CCI, Google argued that the issues mirrored those already addressed in the Google Play Case (Case No. 39 of 2018), where the CCI had upheld the fairness of its Play Store policies. Google maintained that the GPDDA and Google Play Developer Program Policies (GPDPP) are standard-form agreements applied uniformly and that Liberty Infospace’s account was terminated under its Relation Ban Policy, which prevents repeat violators from re-entering the ecosystem. It submitted that automated enforcement, supplemented by human review, was necessary for scale and consistency, and that differences in EU appeal processes resulted from statutory obligations under the DSA rather than discriminatory conduct.
Although the CCI agreed that Google held a dominant position in the “market for app stores for Android mobile operating systems in India” it did not find prima facie evidence of abuse under Section 4. The CCI held that Google’s termination and appeal processes, particularly the relational ban framework, were designed to ensure compliance and safeguard users, not to exclude developers arbitrarily. The CCI accepted Google’s rationale for limiting disclosure of specific evidence to prevent policy evasion and noted that Google had no commercial incentive to remove compliant developers, given that a larger app base benefits its ecosystem.
The CCI also noted that the GPDDA and GPDPP had been previously reviewed in the Google Play Case and found to be non-abusive. In this instance, the termination and appeal process aligned with Google’s global practices and combined automated checks with human oversight, which the CCI did not find unfair or discriminatory per se. It further considered the linkage between Liberty Infospace’s developer account and the “Malware Seed Account” a sufficient and proportionate ground for termination.
In conclusion, the CCI found the dispute to be an individual contractual grievance rather than a systemic practice capable of causing an appreciable adverse effect on competition. The case was accordingly closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, and interim relief under Section 33 was declined.
This order reinforces the CCI’s measured approach while considering cases involving digital platforms, particularly those involving alleged “unfair termination” of developer accounts. The decision distinguishes between commercial disputes arising from standard contractual enforcement and genuine competition concerns involving exclusionary or discriminatory conduct. While the CCI acknowledged the asymmetry between major platforms and small developers, it found no evidence of systemic foreclosure or exploitative behaviour by Google. The ruling underscores that platform governance decisions, when applied uniformly and supported by objective justification, do not by themselves constitute abuse of dominance.
NCLAT affirms primacy of Patents Act over Competition Act in pharma disputes (See order here)
The NCLAT has held that the CCI lacks jurisdiction to examine allegations of anti-competitive conduct relating to patented pharmaceutical products, ruling that such issues fall squarely within the scope of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act). The judgment, delivered in Swapan Dey v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 5 of 2023, decided on 30 October 2025), affirms that the Patents Act is the special legislation governing disputes over the exercise of patent rights.
The appeal arose from a complaint filed before the CCI by Mr. Swapan Dey, CEO of a hospital under the Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme, alleging that Vifor International AG (Vifor), the patent holder of Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM)—a drug used to treat iron deficiency anaemia—had abused its dominant position by restricting supply and maintaining high prices. The CCI had closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, finding no prima facie case against Vifor.
On appeal, the NCLAT upheld the CCI’s decision and went further to hold that the CCI lacked jurisdiction altogether, observing that the Patents Act prevails over the Competition Act when the alleged abuse arises from the exercise of patent rights. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. CCI and the SC’s order dated 2 September 2025, which upheld that view, the NCLAT concluded that matters concerning patented inventions—including licensing conditions and alleged market restrictions—must be adjudicated under the Patents Act.
The NCLAT noted that Section 3(5) of the Competition Act expressly preserves the right of patent holders to impose reasonable conditions necessary to protect their intellectual property. It further referred to Sections 83 and 84 of the Patents Act, which provide a detailed framework for addressing unreasonable licensing terms and grant of compulsory licences. Since the patent for FCM expired in October 2023, the NCLAT also found no continuing competition concern.
The NCLAT thus held that the CCI lacked the power to investigate or adjudicate claims relating to the use or licensing of patented inventions and dismissed the appeal.
CCI Clarifies Applicability of Rule 3 Exemption to Intra-Group Transfers Under Combination Exemption Rules (See order here)
The CCI has clarified the interpretation and scope of Rule 3 of the Competition (Criteria of Exemption of Combination) Rules, 2024 (Exemption Rules), in the context of intra-group transactions. The clarification came in the Kedaara II Continuation Fund (Kedaara) order, which involved an intra-group transfer of minority shares in Lenskart Solutions Limited, within the Kedaara Group (Lenskart Transaction). The Acquirer also notified the proposed acquisition of shares of Care Health Insurance Limited (Care), held by Trishikhar Ventures LLP (Trishikhar) to Kedaara (Care Transaction) as a transaction inter-connected to the Lenskart Transaction.
The CCI examined whether Rule 3 of the Exemption Rules which exempts certain acquisitions of additional shares or voting rights by an acquirer or its group—applies to transactions that do not involve any incremental acquisition, but instead a transfer of existing shareholding within the same group. The Acquirer argued that a literal interpretation confined the Rule to instances involving acquisition of “additional” shareholding, excluding intra-group transfers where ownership percentages remain unchanged.
Rejecting this narrow interpretation, the CCI held that reading Rule 3 as applicable only to incremental acquisitions would be inconsistent with the purpose and scheme of the Act and the Exemption Rules. Instead, the CCI adopted a purposive interpretation, extending the benefit of Rule 3 to intra-group transfers that satisfy all other conditions—particularly where control, rights, and shareholding continuity remain unaffected.
Accordingly, the CCI concluded that both the Lenskart and Care transactions were eligible for exemption under Rule 3 of the Exemption Rules and therefore did not require notification under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act.
CCI publishes much awaited AI Market Study (Report released 6 October 2025)
The CCI has released its long-awaited Market Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Competition Law (Report), marking India’s first comprehensive review of AI’s implications for competition policy. The study reflects a measured and cooperative approach, favouring advocacy, self-regulation, and capacity building over immediate legislative intervention.
While echoing global concerns about concentration of AI infrastructure, algorithmic collusion, and data-driven market power, the CCI stops short of recommending new regulatory tools. Instead, it calls for voluntary self-audit mechanisms, enhanced transparency in algorithmic operations, and public investment in open-source and non-personal data infrastructure to level the playing field for smaller AI developers.
Notably, the Report situates India within the Asian school of “soft regulation”, aligning with jurisdictions such as Singapore and Japan that prioritise innovation and market monitoring before introducing prescriptive AI rules. The CCI also underscores the need for institutional readiness, signalling that it intends to build expertise and stakeholder dialogue before considering any ex-ante framework for AI markets.
In essence, the CCI’s Report is a statement of intent—regulation through persuasion, not prohibition. It indicates that the regulator’s immediate focus lies in developing understanding, guiding industry conduct, and encouraging compliance-led governance in AI-driven markets.
(Please find a link to our detailed analysis here.]