- within Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in China
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Technology and Law Firm industries
1. Introduction
India's competition law framework is poised for a landmark judicial examination as the Delhi High Court prepares to hear Apple Inc.'s petition challenging key provisions of the Competition (Amendment) Act 2023 and the Monetary Penalty Guidelines 2024. The challenge comes at a time when Apple is already defending multiple investigations before the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
Apple's petition contests the constitutional validity of the amended penalty architecture, which authorises the CCI to compute penalties on the basis of an enterprise's global turnover, encompassing revenue earned outside India and revenue derived from business lines entirely unconnected to the alleged contravention. This represents a decisive shift from the long-standing "relevant turnover" doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Excel Crop Care v. CCI, which for nearly a decade has anchored penalty jurisprudence by ensuring that penalties remain linked to the turnover of the product or service implicated in the infringement.
The case therefore lies at the intersection of legislative intent, constitutional limits on administrative punishment, and India's evolving approach to regulating global digital platforms. Its outcome will likely redefine the contours of penalty computation and determine whether Excel Crop Care remains a binding constraint or becomes a superseded doctrinal chapter.
2. Evolution of India's Penalty Framework
A. Before 2023: Relevant Turnover as a Constitutional Necessity
Before the 2023 amendment, Section 27(b) of the Competition Act empowered the CCI to impose penalties of up to ten percent of the average turnover for the preceding three financial years, but the statute did not define "turnover." This legislative ambiguity was resolved by the Supreme Court in Excel Crop Care, which held that penalties must be based on relevant turnover, that is, the turnover derived specifically from the product or service implicated in the contravention and not on total turnover spanning unrelated business divisions. The Court reasoned that penalties grounded in overall turnover could violate principles of proportionality, rational nexus, and equitable punishment, especially for multi-product enterprises whose unrelated business lines should not inflate penalty exposure. By explicitly rejecting the CCI's earlier practice of using total turnover, the Court established a stabilising principle that protected enterprises from disproportionate and irrational sanctions while ensuring administrative fairness.
B. After 2023: Global Turnover as the Penalty Base
The Competition (Amendment) Act 2023 introduced a significantly expanded definition of turnover that includes a company's gross global revenue across all products and services, regardless of whether those markets were implicated in the alleged infringement or whether the revenue had any territorial nexus with India. This legislative redesign directly overrides the Excel Crop Care standard. The Monetary Penalty Guidelines 2024 operationalise this shift, clarifying in Paragraph 3(6) that when determining relevant turnover is not feasible, the CCI may rely on global turnover derived from all products and services when calculating penalties. As a result, the statutory cap of ten percent of turnover now effectively becomes ten percent of global turnover, substantially increasing penalty exposure for multinational enterprises. Importantly, while global turnover is referenced in many foreign jurisdictions, it is typically used as a maximum limit rather than the starting point for computation. India's shift therefore marks a fundamental departure from global practice.
3. Why the Amendment Is Controversial
A. The Rationale in Excel Crop Care
The Supreme Court's reasoning in Excel Crop Care extended beyond statutory interpretation and rested on core constitutional principles governing administrative penalties. The Court emphasised that penalties must maintain a rational nexus with the infringing conduct, must be proportionate to the gravity of the violation, and must avoid arbitrary or inequitable outcomes, especially for diversified enterprises with multiple business lines. It cautioned that using total turnover or more drastically, global turnover, could produce penalties entirely disconnected from market harm, thereby breaching Article 14's prohibition on arbitrary State action. The 2023 amendments consciously depart from this jurisprudential grounding.
B. Policy Drivers Behind the Legislative Override
The Government's case for expanding the penalty base centres on key features of digital markets. Indian users often generate high engagement but relatively low revenue; digital players typically rely on cross-subsidisation within global product ecosystems; powerful network effects allow value extraction in markets not directly monetised; and global digital platforms may treat India as a jurisdiction with limited revenue risk. Legislators argue that relying solely on relevant turnover would render penalties insignificant for large global corporations and would fail to create meaningful deterrence. The shift toward global turnover therefore reflects an enforcement philosophy that prioritises deterrence and regulatory parity with foreign antitrust regimes. However, critics question whether such a broad penalty design can withstand constitutional scrutiny in the absence of a clear causal connection between the conduct investigated and the turnover used as the penalty base.
C. Apple's Challenge: The Core Claims
Apple contends that the amended penalty framework is untethered from the infringing conduct and therefore violates constitutional principles of proportionality and rationality. It argues that the penalty base now includes revenues from iPhones, Macs, iPads, wearables, and globally offered services, even though the CCI's inquiry concerns only alleged restrictive practices within the Indian App Store. According to Apple, the new approach could produce penalties hundreds of times larger than any conceivable harm in the relevant market, effectively transforming a modest domestic inquiry into a sanction calibrated against worldwide operations. Apple further asserts that Parliament cannot eliminate constitutional safeguards simply by redefining turnover. The petition therefore raises a central question: can an administrative penalty remain constitutionally valid when its computational base bears no logical or factual connection to the conduct being penalised?
4. Comparative Jurisdictions: The Global Turnover Distinction
Although global turnover is referenced internationally, the manner of its use varies significantly.
A. EU and UK Approach: Global Turnover as a Cap
The European Commission and the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) use global turnover only as an outer ceiling, not as the penalty base. Their methodology begins with identifying relevant turnover in the affected market, applying an appropriate percentage based on the seriousness of the infringement, adjusting the penalty to reflect aggravating and mitigating factors as well as deterrence considerations, and only then applying the statutory cap of ten percent of worldwide turnover. Crucially, this approach preserves the causal link between the conduct and the penalty imposed.
B. The Indian Approach: Global Turnover as the Base
In contrast, India's amended model treats global turnover as the primary starting point for penalty calculation. This structure is uncommon among major antitrust jurisdictions and raises concerns regarding proportionality, constitutional reasonableness of economic sanctions, and the permissible balance between deterrence and fairness.
5. Why Penalty Base Matters: A Numerical Illustration
The significance of this shift becomes clear when examined through a numerical example. Consider a company with a global turnover of USD 383 billion, of which only USD 350 million is generated from India's App Store, the specific market implicated in the alleged restrictive billing rules. Under the pre-amendment relevant turnover framework, the penalty would have been calculated only on the India-specific revenue, resulting in a maximum exposure of USD 35 million at the ten percent threshold. After the amendment, however, the penalty base expands to the company's entire global turnover. Even a modest one percent penalty on USD 383 billion produces a sanction of USD 3.83 billion, while a ten percent penalty reaches an extraordinary USD 38.3 billion. Thus, even the lowest penalty under the global-turnover regime exceeds the earlier maximum by more than one hundred times. This stark disparity is central to Apple's argument that the post-amendment approach disrupts the proportional relationship between conduct and punishment.
6. Supporting Indian Jurisprudence: Proportionality Beyond Excel
A. Mahindra: Reinforcing Proportionality in Administrative Penalties
The Delhi High Court's decision in Mahindra underscores that administrative penalties must always be appropriate, necessary, and proportionate to the harm identified. Although the case did not arise under competition law, it affirms constitutional limits that apply equally to the CCI's exercise of penalty powers.
B. NCLAT Decisions After Excel
Subsequent NCLAT decisions, including the Google Play Billing matter, reiterate that using total turnover risks inequitable outcomes, that penalties must maintain a rational nexus with the infringement, and that Excel Crop Care remains binding for conduct predating the amendment. These rulings highlight the doctrinal tension between legislative objectives and judicially developed safeguards.
7. Broader Regulatory Implications
Although Apple's petition focuses specifically on penalties for abuse and cartel conduct, the implications extend well beyond enforcement actions. The expanded turnover standard may influence merger control thresholds for global enterprises with limited Indian revenues, shape the identification of systemically significant digital enterprises, accelerate discussions around ex-ante digital competition regulation, and materially affect compliance strategies for multinational technology firms operating in India. In practical terms, the amendment shifts the risk calculus for global companies engaged in India's digital economy.
8. Conclusion
Apple's petition arrives at a pivotal moment for India's competition policy. The 2023 amendment signals an assertive move toward a deterrence-centric enforcement model tailored to the realities of global digital markets. At the same time, the shift departs from the constitutional and jurisprudential safeguards developed through Excel Crop Care and subsequent cases. The Delhi High Court must now balance Parliament's objective of strengthening deterrence with the Supreme Court's proportionality-focused framework, constitutional limits on administrative penalties, and global best practices that preserve a clear nexus between conduct and sanction. The Court's decision, whether it validates the global turnover standard or recalibrates it, will shape the future of competition regulation in India and carry significant consequences for multinational technology companies whose revenue footprints extend far beyond national borders.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.