Competition Law Regime in India, USA & European Union

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

Follow us

Introduction

India is widely acknowledged to put-forth a novice Competition Law regime at the world fora even when the traces of its Jurisprudence are older than its counterparts. Indian legislature enacted the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act, 1969) as one of its initial attempts to regulate competition in the Indian markets.

In India, the Competition Laws derive their initiation spots from Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India which are a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy which mandate, inter alia, that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively, as it may, a social order in which justice social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life, and the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing.

  1. That the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good; and
  2. That the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

Origination of MRTP Act

In 1991 India moved from a strict Command and Control economy to a free and liberal economy based on free market principles. Even though this liberalization of economy has proved to be a boon for Indian economy, it trenched a crucial need to enact a legislation to regulate the increasing competition in the Indian markets.

Hence MRTP Act, 1969 was brought in force to stop concentration of wealth in a few hands and to stop Monopolistic trade activities and to regulate the unfair trade practices. This act majorly regulated the self-acquired monopolies of the market players by compelling them to decentralize this monopoly and to act in consonance with the provisions of the MRTP Act, 1969.

Emergence of the Competition Act in India

The Act laid the stepping stone of bringing up the India’s Competition Law regime at par with the internationally recognized standards. However the Constitutional validity was challenged soon after it was enacted in the landmark case of Brahm Dutt v. Union of India, wherein the contention raised by the petitioners was mainly focussed on the appointment of a retired bureaucrat as the chairperson of the Commission which was vested with certain judicial powers. The State consented to bring amendment to the Act and hence the competition authority, as envisaged in the original Act, was divided into two (i) the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) as an administrative expert body; and (ii) the Competition Tribunal (“COMPAT”) to carry out adjudicatory functions.

Enforcement Structure: US-EU vis-à-vis India

The US enforcement framework comprises of multiple agencies and legislations in comparison to India’s model of single legislation and single agency.

United States have two agencies which are vested with the task to enforce the ‘anti-trust’ laws, the Anti-Trust Department of Justice (DoJ) and the other being the ‘Federal Trade Commission’. Latter being the administrative agency like the Competition Commission of India.

The European Agency which regulates the Competition Laws in the EU originates from the treaty on the Functioning of European Union (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Treaty’). The treaty is generally applicable to the agreements entered into by different countries, however these countries have their own competition law enforcement agencies and their respective legislations. The European Council entrusted the responsibility of proper implementation and enforcement of the treaty to the European Commission (EC). India closely follows the working and enforcement policies of EC and hence the functioning of CCI closely resembles the functioning of CCI.

Regulation by the Competition Act

The Competition Act is usually misunderstood to prohibit Competition in India, which is not the purpose of the Act. The Act primarily seeks to regulate the malpractices in the market which in turn contributes to adverse effects on the spirit of fair competition in the market.

The Act primarily prohibits

  1. Anti-competitive arrangements – These are those agreements which have, as their object, prevention, restriction or distortion of the competitive market in India. These are barred by Competition Act.
  2. Abuse of dominant position – The Competition Act forbids any conduct which leads to the abuse of a dominant position of any market player, which may have, as its objective or causal effect, a significant ill-effect on competition in any market in India. “Dominant position” has also been defined in the Act as a “position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market in India, which enables it to: (i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or (ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.”
  3. Mergers and acquisitions that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.

Conclusion

The Indian Framework of Competition Law and its enforcement is mainly based on the Jurisprudence of the subject which was majorly developed in the EU and the United States. The Competition Commission of India and its counterparts in the EU and the United States have played a significant role in the proper implementation of the law and its enforcement has proved to be highly accurate as it imposes sanctions by the way of penalties to deter anti-competitive practices and to impose a rigorous and strict competitive feeling in the market guided by proper rules and regulations to eradicate any malpractices in the Market.

Latest News

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -