Competition Quarterly Milestones (April-June 2026)

The Supreme Court of India, in its order dated 27 May 2026, clarified several aspects of India’s merger control framework, including the scope of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) powers after approving a combination and the circumstances in which penalties may be imposed for non-disclosure under the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended) (Competition Act).

The ruling arose from Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC’s (Amazon) appeal against the CCI’s order relating to its 2019 investment in Future Coupons Private Limited (FCPL).¹ The CCI had held that Amazon failed to adequately disclose the true scope of the transaction and its links to Future Retail Limited (FRL). The CCI order kept the merger approval in abeyance, directed a fresh filing, and imposed a penalty of INR 202 crore on Amazon. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had largely upheld the CCI’s order.

Allowing the appeal in its entirety, the Supreme Court set aside both the CCI’s order and the NCLAT’s judgment. The key takeaways from this ruling are:

• A merger notice filed, reviewed, and approved by the CCI cannot subsequently be treated as a failure to notify under the gun-jumping² provision (Section 43A of the Competition Act) merely because the CCI later disagrees with how the transaction was characterised in the filing.

• Penalties for misinformation and non-disclosure (under Sections 44 and 45 of the Competition Act) require precise findings on materiality and the requisite mental element. A broad inference of lack of candour, without specific reasoning, is insufficient to sustain a penalty.

• The one-year limitation to initiate inquiries (under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Competition Act) is a jurisdictional bar. Post-expiry proceedings that effectively re-open a closed combination or undo a prior approval are not permissible, even if framed as penalty proceedings.

• The CCI has no power to keep an approval in abeyance or direct a fresh long form (i.e., Form II) merger filing without clear and traceable statutory authority.

• Parties must receive a fair notice from the CCI of both, the allegations and the proposed consequences, before any adverse action is taken.

The NCLAT, through its judgment dated 5 May 2026, clarified the procedural safeguards to be followed when the CCI disagrees with the findings of the Director General (DG).³

In 2020, the CCI found Grasim Industries Limited (Grasim) engaged in discriminatory pricing and required spinners to disclose production and export data to receive discounts (i.e., imposed supplementary obligations).⁴ The CCI had imposed a penalty of INR 301.61 crore on Grasim for abuse of dominance. Grasim challenged the order before the NCLAT on procedural grounds.

The NCLAT accepted Grasim’s contention, holding that where the CCI proposes to depart from the DG’s findings, it must first issue a show cause notice explaining the reasons for the deviation and provide the affected parties with an opportunity to respond. The Tribunal also noted that this principle has since been codified in the proviso to Section 26(9) of the Competition Act, with effect from 19 September 2024. It accordingly set aside the penalty imposed on Grasim and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

• Investigation into anti-competitive arrangements in pharmaceutical distribution

  The CCI, in June 2026, closed proceedings concerning alleged anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical sector.⁵ The allegations centred around the industry practice of compelling drug manufacturers’ associations to enter into Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) that contained various one-sided conditions, including insistence on No Objection Certificates (NOC) or Letters of Cooperation (LOC) and imposition of certain charges on the manufacturers.

  The DG had found that several industry associations and pharmaceutical companies had engaged in anti-competitive arrangements. However, the CCI found that the evidence largely related to a period before 2012 and that the relevant MoUs had already been terminated. It also found no evidence that the alleged practices or any organised boycott mechanism continued after the associations adopted compliance measures. Accordingly, the CCI held that no contravention of the Competition Act had occurred.

  The order highlights that historical industry arrangements and past conduct, without evidence of continuing implementation or competitive harm, may not be sufficient to establish a competition law violation.

• Abuse of dominance investigation into 12 super-specialty hospitals across Delhi-NCR

  The CCI also closed an abuse of dominance inquiry against 12 super-specialty hospitals across Delhi-NCR.⁶ The allegations related to admitted patients being compelled to purchase medicines, consumables, implants, devices, and diagnostic services from the hospitals’ in-house facilities at inflated prices.

  In its investigation, the DG assessed the hospitals individually by defining the relevant market as the provision of healthcare facilities for in-patients of the respective super-specialty hospital. It accordingly found each hospital to be dominant and abusive in its respective market. The CCI disagreed, holding that the relevant market comprised all super-specialty hospitals in Delhi-NCR rather than individual hospitals. The CCI also found insufficient evidence to establish excessive pricing, noting that the DG’s comparisons with hotels for room rates and with standalone laboratories for diagnostic services did not adequately reflect the nature of hospital services.

  Accordingly, the CCI held that no case of abuse of dominance can be made out against any of the 12 super-specialty hospitals. The CCI, however, recognised that competition concerns may arise in specific situations where admitted patients have little or no practical ability to switch service providers during treatment.

The CCI found 17 electrical contractors to have engaged in bid-rigging in tenders floated by the Assam Police Housing Corporation Limited for internal and external electrification works at police stations across Assam.⁷

The CCI relied on a range of evidence indicating coordination among the bidders, including: (i) bid rotation and cover bidding across tenders; (ii) identical pricing patterns and estimation errors; (iii) use of common IP addresses and the same cyber cafe for bid submissions; (iv) communications between bidders regarding the tenders during the tender period; and (v) sequentially numbered demand drafts submitted on behalf of multiple bidders.

The CCI observed that the contractors had acted in concert to allocate tenders and reduce competitive intensity, and held them guilty of bid-rigging. However, considering mitigating circumstances (such as the contractors being first-time e-tender participants and small, low-profit businesses with clean records), the CCI only issued a cease and desist order and did not impose any monetary penalty.

The CCI, through its order dated 9 June 2026, held four truck owners’ associations (Truck Associations) operating in Odisha guilty of anti-competitive conduct for collectively fixing freight rates for transportation of minerals, thereby restricting independent transporters from operating in the region.⁸

The CCI found that the associations had imposed freight rates above those prescribed by the State Transport Authority and prevented non-member transporters from providing transportation services. The CCI observed that such conduct functioned as a barrier to entry and effectively foreclosed market access for competing transporters, thereby limiting the provision of transportation services.

Accordingly, the CCI held the associations liable for price-fixing and limiting market access, issued a cease and desist order against them, and deferred the determination of penalty until receipt of the requisite financial details.

The CCI published draft amendments to the CCI (Commitment) Regulations, 2024 (Draft Amendments) for stakeholder comments on 29 May 2026.⁹ The Draft Amendments seek to provide greater flexibility in the commitments process by extending the applicable timelines:

• A commitment application can be filed within 60 days of receipt of the CCI’s prima facie order (instead of the current 45-day period).
• The entire commitment proceedings must be concluded within 180 working days (instead of the current 130 working days).

Although the CCI has not accepted any commitment applications since the framework was introduced, the Draft Amendments reflect the CCI’s continued efforts to operationalise and improve the effectiveness of the commitments framework.