The Regulatory Gridlock: Jurisdictional Overlaps Between CCI And Sectoral Authorities

Competition Commission of India (CCI) serves as the Competition watchdog by ensuring free and fair competition across various sectors. Its functions encompass ensuring freedom of trade, preventing market failures, prohibiting anti-competitive practices and preserving consumer interests.^[1] The CCI is not a sector-based body and enjoys a broad range of jurisdiction which cut across sectoral boundaries and thus covers all the industries with the primary focus on the objects behind the Competition Act, 2002^[2]. Any limitation in the power or jurisdiction of CCI can have detrimental effect on the economy.

However, jurisdiction of CCI sometimes overlaps with sector-specific regulators. Such regulators include SEBI (for securities), TRAI (for telecom), IRDAI (for insurance) amongst others. The concurrent jurisdiction arises because the object of both i.e. CCI and sector-specific regulators is similar i.e. promotion of Consumer Welfare and fair Competition. Several issues arise from this overlapping jurisdiction such as confliction decisions due to simultaneous proceedings, forum shipping by parties who exploit the ambiguity, uncertainty due to unclear penalties etc. The recent Torrent Power Limited (TPL), Order of January 2025^[3], highlighted the persistent jurisdictional overlap between the CCI and sectoral regulators. In this case, the core issue was whether electricity sector falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of JERC under Section 60 of Electricity Act, 2003^[4] or compliance has also to be made under Competition Act, 2002. Torren power ltd., by relying upon Anand Praksh Agarwal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (COMPAT,2017)^[5]and decision of Delhi HC in Second Ericsson^[6], contended that since Electricity Actis a special statute it overrides the Competition Act and therefore, the compliance with Competition Act is not required. CCI rejected JERC's claim of exclusive jurisdiction. It reaffirmed the reasoning of Tata Power Limited^[7] and held that both acts operate in complementary domains. Electricity Act in itself is not a complete code for merger control, it regulates tariff aspects while Competition Act deals with competition issues.

In such scenarios of jurisdictional overlap, the approach of Courts has been to let CCI independently assess the market conduct for competition concerns while sector-specific regulators address the technical issues by promoting a harmonious construction rather than completely excluding a particular body to act at all. The Courts have set forth the guidelines regarding this in cases such as CCI v Bharti Airtel^[8] and Bicon v. Roche^[9]. CCI v. Bharti Airtel is a landmark case which resolve the jurisdictional overlap between TRAI and CCI. In this case Reliance Jio alleged abuse of dominance and cartelization by Airtel, Idea, Vodafone under Section 3 and 4 of Competition Act, 2022. Bombay High Court held that CCI lacked jurisdiction until the technical issues have been examined by TRAI. Supreme Court upheld Bombay HC's decision by noting that CCI's jurisdiction is only deferred and not completely excluded. The Court formulated a “sequencing test” and following the sequence, sectoral regulator will give its findings and then it will go to CCI for its examination. This case emphasized the principle of “comity of regulators” and affirmed that CCI and sectoral regulators must operate in cooperation rather than conflict. In Biocon v. Rochwe^[10], it was ruled that CCI retains jurisdiction to examine the competitive conduct even where regulatory mechanisms exist under specific statutes, for instance, under Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Competition and Data Protection

There is a potential foreseeable conflict between Competition Law and Data protection Laws. The WhatsApp-Meta decision^[11] by Competition Commission of India (CCI) put forth the questions about regulatory coordination, jurisdictional boundaries, and privacy as a parameter for assessing anti-competitive conduct. CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 213.14 Crore on WhatsApp and Meta for abusing their dominant position by forcing unfair conditions on users through 2021 privacy terms change. These terms authorized data sharing with Meta group companies without the consent of users by formulating coercive consent conditions. This case was the first instance where privacy was recognized as a form of non-price competition, and it set out the precedent by establishing that excessive data collection can amount to abuse of dominance. The NCLAT in November 2025 upheld the decision of CCI and noted that Competition Laws and Data Protection Laws are complementary rather than exclusive frameworks. Though the overlap exists between privacy and competition but that doesn't deprive CCI of its jurisdiction.

At the time of privacy terms change in 2021, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act^[12] was not in force. Once it will be fully enforced, Privacy policies will be governed under the DPDP Act. The future CCI investigations into privacy policies will depend upon the regulations of this Act and if it specifies specific privacy requirements, CCI's role will considerably diminish. The evolving interface between Competition Law and data privacy is a complex area while will require coordination amongst CCI and DPDP Board.

A Way Forward

The jurisdictional conflict between CCI and sectoral regulatory bodies continues to be a nuanced concern within India's Competition Law framework. Courts have time and again emphasized upon the principle of harmonious construction which underscores the mutual respect and coordination between sector-specific regulators and CCI. However, there is a lack of legislative clarity which causes a greater degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. The mechanism envisaged under Section 21 and 21A^[13] which were meant to facilitate coordination by allowing cross-referencing largely remains symbolic and under-utilized since they are non-binding. Recent amendments by way of Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 empowers CCI to execute MOUs with sector- specific statutory bodies. Such developments may pave the way for fostering regulatory synergy in the long run.

Author is 4th year law student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU

Views Are Personal. 

1. Competition Act, 2002, Preamble, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India). ↑

2. CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. AIR 2019 SC 113 ↑

3. In re: Torrent Power Limited (Order under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002), M. & A. No. 11/2024, at 6 (Competition Comm'n of India Jan. 14, 2025). ↑

4. Case No. 68 of 2016 (CCI) (2017). ↑

5. Shri Anand Parkash Agarwal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors., Case No. 1 of 2016, Competition Commission of India (Feb. 10, 2016). ↑

6. Lava International Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 406 ↑

7. Combination Registration No. C- 2021/03/824, Order dated 17.03.2022. ↑

8. Bharti Airtel, supra note 2, at 1. ↑

9. Case No. 68 of 2016 (CCI) (2017). ↑

10. Id. ↑

11. In Re: Updated Terms of Service and Privacy Policy of WhatsApp Inc., Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2021 (CCI, Nov. 18, 2024). ↑

12. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, § 4, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India). ↑

13. Competition Act, 2002, §§ 21–22, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India). ↑