Introduction 

The first step to success is competition. When markets stabilise, the economy gains sustainability,
earnings, effectiveness, advancement, and long-term advantages. One such law is the The
Competition Act, 2002, which aims to eliminate anti-competitive behaviour by prohibiting anti-
competitive agreements and mistreating market domination situations. As long as it is done in a
legal manner, competition is regarded as a healthy practice for fostering chances and acting as a
motivator in any profession. Perfect competition is characterised by a market outcome in which
all firms sell a homogeneous and perfectly divisible product, all producers and consumers accept
prices, all firms have a small market share, and buyers and sellers are fully informed about the
market Competition law and policy in India have undergone active interpretation over a period of
its evolution. 

The Competition Act, 2002 

The Vajpayee government developed the concept of the ‘Competition Commission’ and
introduced it as the Competition Act, 2002. It was considered that competition and private
enterprise needed to be encouraged, particularly in light of the 1991 economic liberalisation of
India. Modern competition rules are based on the Competition Act of 2002, as updated by the 
Competition (Amendment) Act of 2007. The President gave his approval to the Competition Act
of 2002 in January of 2003, after Parliament enacted it in 2002. The Competition Commission of
India (CCI) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal have been constituted in compliance with the
Amendment Act’s requirements.

The Act forbids anti-competitive agreements, corporate abuse of dominant positions, and
combinations (including acquisitions, takeovers of control, and mergers and acquisitions) that
have or are likely to have a materially negative impact on competition in India.

The Competition Act of 2002 must now be explored, questioned, and investigated for its
effectiveness in the technological age, in the face of digitalization, commercialization, and the
Internet of Things. India has now reached another critical juncture, a crossroads in its antitrust
regime. Consideration of whether India urgently requires a long-term amendment to the
Competition Act, 2002, is becoming more and more necessary as the last remaining brick-and-
mortar stores steadily disappear and internet behemoths graze the opulent savannah of the
country’s largely unregulated and greatly diverse economy.

Objective and scope of The Competition Act, 2002

The Competition Act of 2002 is a piece of legislation that aims to defend consumer interests from
anti-competitive behaviour, foster and sustain market competition, safeguard consumer interests,
and guarantee other market participants’ freedom of trade. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act), which formerly applied only to India, has been replaced by the
new law.
The three foundational pieces of competition legislation upon which the Competition Act has
been built are the National Competition Policy (NCP), the Competition Appellate Tribunal, and
the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The major reason for passing this legislation is to make sure that market competition operates as
intended and that customers have access to a broader variety of goods at reasonable costs. 

Features of The Competition Act, 2002

Some of the notable features of The Competition Act, 2002 have been laid down hereunder:

1. Anti-competitive agreements: Any agreement between two or more businesses or

individuals to preserve market competition and protect consumers’ interests in India is
prohibited by the competition law. These agreements may be horizontal or vertical.
Horizontal agreements are those between businesses at the same level of production,
whereas vertical agreements are those between businesses at various phases of
production.
2. Anti cartels: Any business that abuses its dominant position will face consequences.
3. Anti-abuse of dominance: Any arrangement between businesses or individuals that
lessens competition would be regarded as illegal.
4. Combination regulations: Only if a merger or acquisition does not damage market
competition will the commission make a decision.
5. Informative nature of this Act: Before taking any action or signing any agreement,
an organisation must tell CCI of its dealings that are likely to harm market
competition in order to ensure transparency and prevent any misunderstandings
between businesses or individuals.

What is the primary goal of The Competition Act,

2002?
The goal of the competition policy is to establish a level playing field for all domestic and foreign
businesses. Consumers will receive high-quality products at reasonable prices if there is
competition in the market. Additionally, it will give producers incentives to innovate and raise
productivity and efficiency. In the end, this will contribute to increased economic growth that is
equitable and efficient.

Three stage transition that The Competition Act,

2002 went through 
The Act calls for a three-stage transition that will replace the MRTP Commission with the CCI
over the first three years following the date of announcement of the Act.
First stage 
1. The MRTP Commission will cease to function at the beginning of the first year, and
CCI will take over as an advising body.
2. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 provides for the transfer of the Consumer
Protection Commission’s open unfair trade conduct proceedings to the relevant
consumer courts.
3. The CCI must take up the pending cases involving monopolistic and restrictive trade
practises for adjudication.

Second stage 
During the second year, CCI would scrutinise the anti-competitive practices.

Third stage 
The CCI would start regulating mergers and acquisitions that would have a negative impact on
competition during the third year.

Competition Commission of India (CCI)

The Competition Commission (CCI) was founded on October 14, 2003, and the Act of 2002 was
enacted essentially along these lines. However, the government was unable to fully implement the
Act’s provisions because a writ petition was filed against some of them before the Honourable
Supreme Court. When deciding the writ petition on January 20, 2005, the Court stated that if the
Union Government were to establish an expert body, it might be appropriate to consider the
formation of two distinct bodies, one with expertise for advisory and regulatory functions and
another for adjudicatory functions based on the constitutionally recognised doctrine of separation
of powers. The CCI consists of a chairperson and six members appointed by the Central
Government.

Purpose of CCI
According to Section 18 of the Act of 2002 and its Preamble, the CCI has a legal obligation to
end activities that have a significant negative impact on competition, foster and maintain
competition, safeguard consumer interests, and secure other participants’ rights to engage in trade
in Indian markets. The Raghavan Committee recommended, among other things, that the CCI be
the exclusive receptacle of all complaints involving violations of the Act from whoever the
source may be, whether it be a person, a business or other body, the Central or state governments.

Landmark judgments on Competition Law 

Google Inc. & Ors v. Competition Commission of
India (2015)
The writ petition was submitted by the three appellants, namely, Google Inc., California, United
States of America (USA), Google Ireland Ltd., Dublin, Ireland, and Google India Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore. 

The CCI opened an investigation into Google’s practices for Android devices and Google apps.
The case’s complainants charged Google with engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. This
action, which has been with the CCI since 2012, originally focused on the “unfair” search results
provided by the internet giant. The CCI discovered that Google is abusing its position by slanting
and manipulating search results and blocking access to rival products. Additionally, the CCI
investigated Google’s contracts with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). This case
resembles the antitrust case brought by the European Commission, which resulted in a $5 billion
penalty against the search engine giant. The Commission was of the opinion that Google “kept
and improved its market position by implementing a strategy on mobile devices” in the European
case, which came to a conclusion in 2018. Google Search was already pre-installed on Android
smartphones by the firm, making it the default search engine.

According to the Delhi High Court in the present case, the CCI can recall or review its order
under specific conditions, but only sparingly and not in every instance where the investigation has
been conducted without a sufficient hearing.

Vinod Kumar Gupta v. WhatsApp Inc (2016)

The Competition Commission of India joined an exclusive group of competition law authorities
on January 24, 2021, and began taking steps to address privacy and competition law. In
accordance with the Competition Act, 2002, the CCI issued a Suo motu decision directing an
investigation into Whatsapp for alleged abuse of dominance in relation to its newly amended
privacy policy as of 2021. This was a significant improvement over the earlier case of Vinod
Kumar Gupta v. WhatsApp Inc. (2016)., in which the CCI decided not to address privacy issues
since they were covered by other laws governing information technology.

In its market assessment of the telecom sector, released on January 22, 2021, CCI recently
demonstrated a significant shift in attitude by noting that privacy can take the shape of non-price
competition. It was then swiftly put into practise through this Suo motu investigation order
against WhatsApp, wherein CCI acknowledged its departure from the prior ruling in the Vinod
Kumar Gupta case, stating that unreasonable data collection and sharing could give dominant
players a competitive advantage, potentially leading to abuse of dominance. For the sake of this
study, it will be limited to critically analysing CCI’s methodology and domain while identifying
WhatsApp’s ostensibly exploitative behaviour at the intersection of privacy and competition law.
Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors (2015)
In accordance with Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, Mr. Mohit Manglani had
complained against a number of e-commerce and portal companies for allegedly violating Section
4 in the present case. The informant claimed that these e-commerce websites had engaged in anti-
competitive behaviour with the providers of products and services in the form of “exclusive
agreements.” 

Due to these tactics, the informant claimed that the customer was obligated to acquire the product
in accordance with the website’s conditions or refrain from making any purchases at all,
regardless of the terms and prices of the goods and services. This might be viewed as a decision
that may have an impact on the development of accountability and openness in the legal system,
as well as fair trade legislation. The Competition Commission of India further went ahead to
investigate whether agreements between manufacturers and online merchants about resale prices
violate any competition laws or not. The answer of which came in affirmative.

Conclusion 
The Competition Act of 2002 was passed by the government as a measure to keep up with the
rapidly evolving economic conditions and is consistent with the new economic paradigms of
globalisation, privatisation, and liberalisation. It shows the country’s readiness to transition from
a planned economy to one with a free market but with sufficient checks and controls.  Market
rivalry that is healthy is crucial for innovation and economic expansion. Injurious trade practices,
including the formation of cartels and monopolies, are against public policy, even though the
Indian economy has advanced from its protective position regarding domestic sectors.

In addition to emphasising regulation, the Act also adopted the idea of “Competition Advocacy”
to advance competition, raise awareness, etc. By imposing severe penalties on the parties
involved in anti-competitive acts, the Commission occasionally makes its presence felt in the
market. The consumer now benefits from healthy market competition and has the opportunity to
choose the most affordable and advantageous choice available to him, which is the main
advantage of such acts. Because the general population is now required to accept the ludicrous
terms and conditions imposed by the major participants in the market, it hurts not only the little
manufacturers but also them. The ideal of economic equity is undermined when the wealthy
increase their wealth at the expense of the poor. To monitor such tactics, a body like the
Competition Commission of India is necessary.

References 
1. https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume2/issue_4/article_by_bhatia.html.
2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3977913.