Year In Review: 10 Indian Competition Law Judgments That Mattered

Indian competition law continued to mature in 2025, with courts playing a pivotal role in defining enforcement boundaries and providing doctrinal clarity. Courts and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) answered complex questions arising from digital markets, enforcement standards, and the evolving interface between sectoral regulation and antitrust law. Several decisions clarified the scope of the CCI's powers, refined substantive competition law principles, and signalled the judiciary's approach to procedural fairness.

The judgments summarized below shaped the trajectory of competition law enforcement and offer important guidance for businesses, regulators and practitioners alike.

1. Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt Ltd & Another, Supreme Court

In one of the most consequential competition law judgments of the year, the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in Schott Glass delivered a pointed critique of over-expansive and procedurally deficient competition law enforcement, while also clarifying the substantive standards applicable to rebate and pricing practices. The Supreme Court held that the volume-based rebates and functional discounts offered by Schott were neutral, non-discriminatory, and efficiency-justified, and that there was no evidence to demonstrate that these practices resulted in foreclosure or throttling of output so as to attract liability under Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Competition Act 2002 (Competition Act). In doing so, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a finding of abuse of dominance must rest on a robust effects-based analysis, rather than on assumptions drawn from the mere existence of rebates or market position.

Importantly, this was also the first instance of the Supreme Court setting out the test to establish an allegation of margin squeeze in the Indian context. Rejecting the allegation of margin squeeze, the Supreme Court noted first, that Schott was not active in the downstream market; second, that the wholesale-to-retail price spread was sufficient to permit an equally efficient competitor to earn sustainable margins; and third, that there was no evidence of competitive harm, including foreclosure. These findings underscored the Supreme Court's insistence on "hard" economic evidence, particularly in complex pricing cases.

Importantly, the Supreme Court noted that the CCI had drawn adverse inferences based on uncorroborated testimony and that the procedural defects arising from the denial of cross-examination to Schott were of a nature that could, in themselves, have warranted dismissal of the complaint. By proceeding on unverified assertions, the CCI denied itself the evidentiary foundation necessary for a legally sustainable determination, inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. In light of this, the Supreme Court also criticised the CCI's selective reliance on evidence, cautioning against "cherry-picking" material supportive of a contravention while disregarding exculpatory data and commercial justifications.

From an enforcement perspective, the judgment reflects clear judicial discomfort with "heavy-handed", outcome-driven intervention and penalty imposition divorced from rigorous analysis. For practitioners, Schott Glass reinforces the importance of challenging form-based theories of harm, pressing for effects-oriented economic assessment, and insisting on procedural safeguards such as cross-examination where disputed facts are central to the case.

2. Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., Supreme Court

In Independent Sugar, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the mandatory and ex ante nature of CCI's approval in combination review, including for transactions arising out of insolvency proceedings. The Supreme Court held that approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) without prior CCI clearance was legally unsustainable, resulting in the invalidation of the approved resolution plan. The decision underscores that merger control under the Competition Act is a substantive statutory requirement, not a post-facto or curable procedural step.

The Supreme Court emphasised the CCI's role as the sole authority competent to assess competitive effects and impose modifications to address competition concerns. It observed that prior CCI approval ensures that any competition-related issues are factored into the CoC's decision-making, and that allowing commercial approvals to precede competition scrutiny would undermine the effectiveness of ex ante merger control.

For transaction counsels, the takeaway is unambiguous: failure to obtain timely CCI approval can be fatal to the transaction itself. The decision signals that deal certainty, especially in distressed or time-sensitive acquisitions, depends on early and rigorous engagement with the CCI.

3. Competition Commission of India v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation & Others, Supreme Court

In Kerala Film Exhibitors, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of procedural fairness in penalty proceedings, balancing the right to be heard against the need for time-bound enforcement. The case arose from findings that the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) and its office bearers entered into an anti-competitive agreement by threatening film distributors with a boycott if they supplied films to a competing theatre. The CCI found a contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act and imposed penalties and directions on both the association and its office bearers.

While the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings on merits, it set aside the penalties imposed on the office bearers on the ground that no separate show cause notice was issued to them prior to the imposition of penalties under Sections 27 and 48 of the Competition Act. The Supreme Court reversed this finding and restored the CCI's order, holding that under the statutory scheme prevailing prior to the 2023 amendments, forwarding the Director General's (DG) report to the parties and calling for objections satisfied the notice requirement where the CCI agreed with the DG's findings and proposed no further inquiry. In such cases, a separate notice is not mandatory before imposing penalties, including personal liability under Section 48 of the Competition Act.

At the same time, the Supreme Court drew an important procedural distinction - where the DG finds no contravention, but the CCI disagrees and proceeds on the basis of further inquiry or supplementary material, the CCI must issue a specific notice identifying the points of disagreement. For practitioners, the decision provides much-needed certainty on notice requirements in penalty proceedings, particularly in cases involving liability of office bearers.

4. Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Private Limited & Others, Supreme Court

In Monsanto, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's decision that the CCI does not have jurisdiction to consider disputes related to patents as that authority lies solely with the Controller of Patents under the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court quashed the CCI's proceedings on the ground that challenges to patent licensing terms, earlier raised by licensees before the CCI, could not be pursued under the Competition Act, effectively excluding the CCI from scrutinising such licensing arrangements. Additionally, the Delhi High Court observed that the private settlement between the original informant and the patent holder had eroded the very substratum of the CCI's proceedings.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals leaving the questions of law open. One factor noted in disposing of the appeal was that the original informants had entered into private settlements and no longer sought continuation of the proceedings.

By keeping the questions of law open, the Supreme Court preserved the possibility of future challenges.

5. WhatsApp LLC & Another v. Competition Commission of India & Others, NCLAT

In WhatsApp, the NCLAT partially allowed the appeals filed by Meta and WhatsApp against the CCI's order concerning WhatsApp's 2021 update to its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. A central issue before the NCLAT was whether the CCI had jurisdiction to examine data-sharing practices under the Competition Act in light of parallel privacy and data-protection frameworks and ongoing proceedings before constitutional courts.

The NCLAT held that competition law and data-protection law operate in distinct but complementary spheres, and that the CCI is entitled to examine data-sharing practices insofar as they have competitive implications. The NCLAT, however, set aside the CCI's finding of anti-competitive leveraging under Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act and the ban on user data sharing with other Meta entities for advertising purposes. The NCLAT upheld the remainder of the CCI's order, including the other remedies and penalty of INR 213.14 crore imposed on WhatsApp and Meta.

The NCLAT's decision clarifies that the CCI's jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the impugned conduct involves issues of data collection or privacy, and that competition law may operate alongside privacy and data-protection regimes.

WhatsApp and Meta have preferred an appeal against the NCLAT's decision which is pending before the Supreme Court.

6. Jiostar India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Others, Kerala High Court

In JioStar, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that the CCI's jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the conduct in question arises within the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (TRAI) domain. Dismissing Jiostar's appeal, the Kerala High Court upheld the CCI's prima facie order under Section 26(1) directing investigation into allegations that Jiostar and its group entities abused their dominant position by extending preferential pricing and discounts to a competing distributor.

Rejecting the contention that the TRAI enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction, the Kerala High Court held that the TRAI Act, 1997 does not address anti-competitive conduct such as abuse of dominance or discriminatory pricing, whereas the Competition Act is intended to address market-wide distortions. While TRAI may regulate licensing conditions and sectoral compliance, allegations of abuse of dominance fall squarely within the CCI's remit, and the mere existence of a sectoral regulator does not, by itself, bar competition law scrutiny.

Notably, in addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Bharti Airtel (which held that the CCI should await TRAI's findings on facts and whether the said conduct appears to be anti-competitive prior to exercising its jurisdiction and initiating an investigation), the Kerala High Court clarified that Bharti Airtel does not lay down a blanket principle of sectoral primacy. Instead, Bharti Airtel was confined to its facts, where technical and regulatory issues required initial determination by the sectoral regulator. In contrast, the allegations against Jiostar concerned questions of competitive conduct, not regulatory interpretation.

No appeal has been filed against this decision on the date of publishing this article.

7. Asian Paints Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Another, Bombay High Court

In Asian Paints, the Bombay High Court dismissed Asian Paints' challenge to the CCI's prima facie order under Section 26(1), and in doing so clarified the scope and operation of newly introduced Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act. Asian Paints argued that because the CCI had previously found no abuse of dominance in an earlier case based on similar allegations, the CCI was jurisdictionally barred from proceeding with the subsequent information. The Bombay High Court rejected this contention, holding that Section 26(2A) is an enabling provision, not a mandatory bar, permitting the CCI to close a matter where the same or substantially similar facts and issues have already been decided, but not obliging it to do so.

The Bombay High Court further held that where the CCI elects to proceed with an investigation and does not close the matter under Sections 26(2) or 26(2A), it is not required to separately record reasons for the non-applicability of Section 26(2A). The decision reiterates that the formation of a prima facie view under Section 26(1) is administrative in nature, and that the existence of a prior closure does not, by itself, preclude the CCI from examining fresh information, where the allegations, market context, or statutory provisions invoked differ.

For businesses, this decision underscores that prior findings do not guarantee immunity from future scrutiny.

Asian Paints appealed this decision before the Supreme Court but subsequently withdrew the appeal.

8. Alphabet Inc. & Others v. Competition Commission of India & Another, NCLAT

In the Google Play Store case, the NCLAT largely upheld the CCI's 2022 finding that Google had abused its dominant position by mandating the exclusive use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for app and in-app purchases on Android. The CCI found Google dominant in the markets for licensable mobile operating systems and app stores for Android, and concluded that Google's conduct i.e., forcing developers to use GPBS, discouraging rival UPI-based payment apps through technical design choices, and exempting its own apps such as YouTube from GPBS resulted in discriminatory and exclusionary effects.

On appeal, while the NCLAT disagreed with certain aspects of the CCI's reasoning, it upheld the core findings of abuse, emphasising the anti-competitive effects of Google's conduct. It affirmed that Google imposed discriminatory conditions in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) by mandating GPBS and had leveraged its dominance in the Android OS and app store markets to protect and strengthen its position in the market for UPI-enabled digital payment apps, amounting to a violation of Section 4(2)(e). The NCLAT's analysis moved away from form-based presumptions and instead focused on foreclosure risks, reduced choice for developers and users, and the competitive disadvantage imposed on rival payment service providers.

The NCLAT finally upheld directions requiring Google to allow third-party billing, prohibit anti-steering restrictions, ensure unhindered in-app access to developers' features and services, and prevent discrimination against UPI-based payment apps relative to Google's own offerings, while setting aside broader data-related and transparency remedies that were not sufficiently tethered to the established violations. This decision reinforces an important principle of ex post competition enforcement that remedies must be closely aligned with the specific conduct and competitive harm proved on record.

An appeal against this decision is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

9. Air Works India (Engineering) Private Limited v. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited & Another, CCI

In Air Works, the CCI closed abuse of dominance proceedings against GMR, holding that the non-renewal of Air Works' licence to operate from airside premises at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA) did not amount to exclusionary or abusive conduct under Section 4 of the Competition Act. While the CCI accepted that GMR was dominant in the upstream market for provision of access to airport facilities at RGIA, it emphasised that dominance alone is insufficient and must be accompanied by demonstrable anti-competitive effects in the downstream market for Line Maintenance Services (LMS).

Departing from the DG's conclusions, the CCI undertook a granular effects-based assessment and found no evidence that the impugned conduct resulted in foreclosure, denial of market access, or leveraging in favour of GMR's subsidiary. The CCI noted that multiple airlines undertook self-line maintenance, that third-party LMS providers could operate without dedicated airside space, and that Air Works continued to provide LMS even after non-renewal of the licence. Crucially, the CCI held that speculative concerns around higher prices or reduced output were insufficient, and that the DG had failed to establish actual or likely harm to competition, innovation, or consumer welfare. On the facts, the non-renewal was attributed to operational and expansion-related considerations rather than an exclusionary strategy.

The decision underscores a disciplined approach to competition enforcement, particularly in regulated infrastructure markets. The CCI reiterated that commercial decisions by a dominant enterprise, such as allocation of scarce facilities, will not attract liability unless supported by hard evidence of exclusionary intent and competitive harm. For businesses, especially infrastructure operators and concessionaires, the decision provides comfort that operational and capacity-driven decisions will withstand competition scrutiny if they are transparently justified, non-discriminatory in effect, and do not foreclose competitors from the market.

No appeal has been filed against this decision on the date of publishing this article.

10. Kshitiz Arya & Another v. Google LLC & Others, CCI

With the introduction of the Competition Commission of India (Settlement) Regulations, 2024, the CCI issued its first settlement order under Section 48A(3) of the Competition Act this year.

In Kshitiz Arya, the informants alleged, and the DG investigation confirmed, that Google had abused its dominant position in the markets for licensable operating systems (OSs) for smart TVs and for app stores such as OSs, by mandating pre-installation of Google TV Services through the Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA), making the pre-installation of Google's proprietary apps (in particular, Play Store) a condition for signing the Android Compatibility Commitment (ACC) and tying YouTube with Play Store, to protect Google's position in the market for online video hosting platforms.

Google then submitted a settlement application. Its proposal included: (a) a "New India Agreement" offering a paid, standalone licence for Google Play Store and Google Play Services without pre-installation obligations (the TADA would continue to be offered alongside the new Agreement); (b) a waiver of the ACC for devices not preloading Google apps; (c) letters reminding Original Equipment Manufacturers of alternative options for OSs; and (d) a five-year duration with annual compliance reports.

The CCI (by majority) accepted the proposal. However, the minority dissent argued that allowing the original TADA to co-exist with the New India Agreement would render the proposal ineffective. From a practitioner's perspective, this order highlights the CCI's willingness to use the newly introduced settlement regime to ensure faster disposal of cases, especially as settlement orders are not appealable.

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.