'No Special Treatment' : Supreme Court Refuses CCI's Plea To Transfer Amazon, Flipkart Cases Directly To Karnataka HC Division Bench

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 13) refused to transfer 24 writ petitions filed in various High Courts by Amazon and Flipkart associated sellers against the Competition Commission of India's probe into alleged anti-competitive practices to a division bench of the Karnataka High Court.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal directed Attorney General for India R. Venkatramani to take instructions on whether the CCI agrees to transfer all cases to a single judge bench, where some of the cases are already pending.Justice Oka said that CCI could not be given special treatment by directing the petitions to be heard directly by the division bench instead of first being decided by a single judge as per the Karnataka High Court Rules. Parties aggrieved by the single-judge decision can appeal to the division bench.“Only because some litigant is to be given special treatment, bypass the rules, we can't place it directly before the division bench”, Justice Oka remarked.The Court was hearing the plea filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) seeking the transfer of the writ petitions filed in various High Courts challenging the CCI's probe into alleged anti-competitive practices to the Supreme Court.During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned why the matter should be brought to the Supreme Court, suggesting instead that it be consolidated in one High Court.Attorney General for India (AGI) R. Venkatramani emphasised that the commission's inquiry has been stalled for four years due to ongoing litigation.Justice Oka pointed out that in similar instances, the Supreme Court had previously transferred all cases on a single issue to one High Court.The AGI proposed two alternatives: either transfer all matters to the Delhi High Court, as its division bench heard the issue first, or allow the Karnataka High Court single judge to conclude the hearings, as it was at an advanced stage. He suggested that once the Karnataka High Court delivered a judgment, any aggrieved party could directly approach the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court could conclusively decide all the matters.Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi for respondents objected to the suggestion of directly approaching the Supreme Court, as that would bypass an intra-court appeal in the High Court.Justice Oka proposed that the Court could order transfer all petitions to the Karnataka High Court. The AGI noted that the Karnataka High Court's single bench was currently hearing the case and sought a transfer to the Delhi High Court. “We will be accepting very dangerous argument that because in one High Court, as per rules matter is heard by single judge, only because in other High Court it is heard by division bench it should come to that High Court”, Justice Oka responded.The AGI then requested that all petitions be heard directly by a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, in order to expedite the issue. “We are talking about millions of consumers…If the division bench in Karnataka High Court can take this matter...” Justice Oka stressed that no litigant should receive special treatment by bypassing one step of the litigation process.The AGI responded, “If it comes from a private entity, perhaps. I'm talking about a public institution talking about public interest, consumer interest, I'm not able to get along with my inquiry. How many years to be taken away from that because they (respondents) can go all around the country?”Singhvi alleged that the CCI was engaging in "forum shopping." The AGI strongly objected to this, asserting that the petition was in the public interest to expedite the inquiry, which impacts millions of consumers.However, the Court remained unconvinced. The AGI requested time to take instructions and return with a conclusive position on Monday. The Court kept the matter on Monday.BackgroundThe CCI initiated the probe in January 2020 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, following a complaint by the Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh, a traders' association. The complaint alleged that Amazon and Flipkart gave preferential treatment to select sellers, boosting their visibility and disadvantaging others. The association also claimed that these preferred sellers were closely linked to the platforms.In June 2021, a single judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by Amazon and Flipkart challenging the probe. Justice PS Dinesh Kumar observed that halting the investigation at the preliminary stage would be unwise. This judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the High Court, which noted that if the companies were not involved in any violation of the law, they should not avoid the inquiry. Subsequently, in August 2021, the Supreme Court also refused to interfere with the CCI's preliminary investigation.In August 2024, the CCI concluded its investigation, finding that Amazon and Flipkart had violated competition laws by favoring select sellers...

'No Special Treatment' : Supreme Court Refuses CCI's Plea To Transfer Amazon, Flipkart Cases Directly To Karnataka HC Division Bench

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags