COMPETITION JURISPRUDENCE AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL IN THE

TELECOM SECTOR

S.NO. CASE NAME OBSERVATION/ CASE STATUS/ REFERENCE

1
1. Cellular Operators v UOI This case discusses competition and ‘level playing
(2003) field’ in light of telecommunication services. No
overlap discussed.
2. Cellular Operators v TRAI2 Mentions Section 27(d) of the Competition Act, 2002
(2016) and states that some license regulations that worked to
the disadvantage of one party were liable to be struck
down as it was being penalized for call drops. The
judgment mentions TRAI’s interest in ‘maintaining fair
competition’ as per the National Telecom Policy (1994)
and the Statement of Object and Reasons for the Act.
No mentioning of the overlap between TRAI and CCI.
3. Hotels Associations of India The CCI discussed that:
v Star Network3
(2006) “TRAI exercises a broad jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction is
not only to fix tariff but also laying down terms and
conditions for providing services. Prima facie, it can
fix norms and the mode and manner in which a
consumer would get the services.

56. The role of a regulator may be varied. A regulation

may provide for cost, supply of service on non-
discriminatory basis, the mode and manner of supply
making provisions for fair competition providing for a
level playing field, protection of consumers' interest,
prevention of monopoly. The services to be provided
for through the cable operators are also recognised.
While making the regulations, several factors are, thus
required to be taken into account. The interest of one of

1
2003 3 SCC 186
2
https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Cellular-Operators-v.-TRAI.pdf
3
2006 13 SCC 753
 the players in the field would not be taken into
consideration throwing the interest of others to the
wind."
4. Star India v Sea TV Network4 Discusses monopoly and elimination of competition
through appointment of Multi-system operators
(MSOs).
Does not mention the overlap.
5. Centre for Public Interest This case discusses Section 11. Additionally, it brings
Litigation v UOI5 (2010) up the case of ‘introducing more competition in the
telecommunication sector’ and ‘equal opportunity’.
Makes no reference to CCI/ MRTP.

6. Avishek Goenka v UOI6 This case discusses Section 11 and ‘facilitation of

(2012) competition as one of the key functions that TRAI is
supposed to perform objectively’.
“If one examines the powers and functions of TRAI, as
postulated under Section 11 of the Act, it is clear that
TRAI would not only recommend, to the DoT, the
terms and conditions upon which a licence is granted to
a service provider but has to also ensure compliance of
the same and may recommend revocation of licence in
the event of non- compliance with the regulations. It
has to perform very objectively one of its main
functions, i.e., to facilitate competition and promote
efficiency in the operation of the telecommunication
services, so as to facilitate growth in such services. It is
expected of this regulatory authority to monitor the
quality of service and even conduct periodical survey to
ensure proper implementation.”

7. BSNL v TRAI7 (2013) This case first went to TDSAT and Delhi High Court,
and eventually to SC. It cites the observation made in

4
2007 4 SCC 656
5
2011 1 SCC 560
6
2012 5 SCC 275
7
(2014)3 SCC 222
 Cellular Operators v UOI8 which stated that:
“the jurisdiction of TDSAT is quite wide and is
circumscribed only by the three instances, i.e., disputes
before the MRTP Commission, Consumer Forums and
those under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act.”

Additionally, the case also discusses ‘facilitation of

competition in the telecommunication services’ as per
Section 11 of the TRAI Act, ‘fair competition’ as per
the 1996 Ordinance.

8. BSNL v Bharti Airtel (2014) Cartelisation allegation against popular players in the
telecom sector. The party had approached TDSAT,
High Court and the Supreme Court9 on the allegation of
violation of license.10
9. Bharti Airtel v UOI11 (2015) Reiterates Section 11 and the duty to facilitate
competition.
12
10. CCI v Bharti Airtel (2018) This was an appeal against the Bombay High Court
order in Vodafone India Ltd v CCI.
The Supreme Court settled the dispute of jurisdiction
between CCI and TRAI. It held that while the CCI can
decide the competition issues, the TRAI and TDSAT
must decide the preliminary issues.

The Supreme Court also believed that, the function that

is assigned to CCI is distinct from the function of
TRAI. It is within the exhaustive domain of CCI to find
out as to whether a particular agreement will have an
appreciable adverse effect on competition within the
relevant market in India. Such functions not only come
within the domain of CCI, but TRAI is not at all
8
Supra Note 1
9
2014 3 SCC 222
10
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/cci-rejects-bsnl-complaint-against-airtel-
vodafoneidea/articleshow/29451399.cms?from=mdr
11
2015 12 SCC 1
12
Ibid
 equipped to deal with the same.13

11. CCI v M/S Fast Way The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court)
Communications14 (2018) overturned the Competition Appellate Tribunal’s
(COMPAT) order and confirmed the Competition
Commission of India’s (CCI) order confirming abuse
of dominance by multi-system operators (MSOs).15
12. Star India Pvt Ltd. v Recognises that one of the functions of TRAI as per
Department of Industrial Section 11 is to facilitate competition and promote
Policy and Promotion16 efficiency in the telecommunication services. This
(2018) function is recommendatory in nature.
13. UOI v Association of United Does not even bring up Section 11. Simply mentions ‘
Telecom Service providers of need for maintaining competition as one of the
India17 functions of the authority”
(2020)

13
Devika, TRAI and TDSAT to determine preliminary issues before CCI can decide competition issue, SCC
Online Blog, 7 Dec 2018, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/12/07/cci-had-no-jurisdiction-to-pass-
order-for-enquiry-in-alleged-cartel-formed-between-airtel-idea-vodafone-coai-supreme-court/
14
2018 4 SCC 316
15
https://competition.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2018/03/supreme-court-confirms-abuse-dominance-multi-
system-operators/#more-2057
16
2019 2 SCC 104
17
2020 SCC OnLine SC 703