Administrative law and competition policy
📘 Part 1: Understanding Administrative Law and Competition Policy
🔹 What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. It ensures that:
Public officials act within their powers (legality),
Decisions are fair (procedural fairness),
There is accountability and transparency,
Citizens can challenge unfair decisions.
It includes rules on how regulatory bodies like competition commissions function, make rules, investigate, and penalize.
🔹 What is Competition Policy?
Competition policy refers to laws and regulations that promote or maintain market competition by:
Preventing anti-competitive agreements (like cartels),
Stopping abuse of dominance (like monopoly pricing),
Controlling mergers that reduce competition,
Ensuring consumer welfare and innovation.
The Competition Commission (or authority) in a country implements these policies. In India, for example, it's the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
🔹 Intersection of Administrative Law and Competition Policy
Administrative law controls how competition authorities operate:
Are their investigations fair?
Are their decisions reasoned?
Is due process followed?
Can parties appeal decisions?
Thus, judicial review of competition authority decisions happens through administrative law principles.
📚 Part 2: Landmark Cases – Explained in Detail
Let’s look at six key cases, focusing on India and global context, showing how competition policy is applied, and how administrative law principles shape enforcement.
🧑⚖️ Case 1: SCC Online v. Competition Commission of India (2020)
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: Abuse of Dominant Position – Access to Legal Database
Facts: SCC Online was accused of denying access to essential legal databases to competitors. The CCI initiated an investigation.
Administrative Law Angle:
SCC Online argued that the CCI acted without proper jurisdiction.
They claimed denial of natural justice and arbitrary exercise of power.
Ruling:
The High Court ruled that CCI is not bound to follow full-fledged trial procedure, but must follow principles of natural justice.
It upheld the CCI’s power to order investigation but stressed that notice and opportunity to be heard must be given at all stages.
Importance:
Clarified that procedural fairness is a must, even for investigative orders.
Reaffirmed administrative law principles in regulatory functioning.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India (2017)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Price Fixing – Cartelization in Public Procurement
Facts: Fertilizer companies (including Excel) were found to have colluded to fix prices in bids to government tenders.
Competition Law:
This was a classic case of bid rigging (a cartel practice prohibited under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002).
Administrative Law Angle:
Excel challenged the penalty imposed by the CCI, arguing arbitrariness in penalty calculation.
Ruling:
The SC upheld the finding of cartelization.
However, it reduced the penalty because the CCI did not follow a consistent method for calculating penalties.
Importance:
Reinforced that regulatory decisions must be consistent, reasoned, and not arbitrary.
Marked a balance between enforcement and administrative fairness.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Competition Commission of India v. Coordination Committee of Artists (2017)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Whether a statutory body can be "enterprise" under Competition Act
Facts: A Coordination Committee of artists prevented another actor (Aamir Khan) from dubbing a film into Marathi, allegedly blocking competition.
Key Question:
Can a statutory body/association be treated as an "enterprise"?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that even non-profit associations fall within the ambit of “enterprise” if they affect the market.
The Committee’s actions violated Section 3 by causing anti-competitive practices.
Importance:
Broadened the scope of "enterprise".
Reinforced that even statutory bodies are accountable under competition law, and subject to administrative fairness.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Facebook (Meta Platforms Inc.) v. Competition Commission of India (2022)
Court: Delhi High Court
Issue: WhatsApp's Privacy Policy – Abuse of Dominance
Facts: CCI ordered an investigation into WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy, which shared user data with Facebook (Meta). Facebook challenged the investigation.
Argument:
Facebook and WhatsApp claimed that the CCI had no jurisdiction since the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court in a constitutional case.
Ruling:
The Delhi High Court upheld CCI’s right to conduct a competition-based investigation, separate from constitutional proceedings.
Held that CCI’s jurisdiction is not ousted merely because another court is seized of a broader issue.
Importance:
Clarified autonomy of competition authorities.
Reinforced the principle that procedural fairness must be followed, but cannot be used to derail investigations.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: United Brands Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (US, 1978)
Jurisdiction: United States
Issue: Abuse of Dominant Position – Predatory Pricing
Facts: United Brands (banana company) was accused of using its dominant position to drive out competitors by lowering prices unreasonably.
Ruling:
The US court ruled that dominant firms must not use unfair pricing tactics to hurt competition.
Found that United Brands’ pricing had no cost justification and was meant to destroy competition.
Administrative Law Relevance:
The Federal Trade Commission had followed due process and investigative steps.
Court reviewed whether procedures were fair and based on evidence.
Importance:
Global precedent on predatory pricing and abuse of dominance.
Shows that even in the US, competition enforcement must align with administrative fairness.
🧑⚖️ Case 6: Bharati Airtel Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issue: Reliance Jio's entry into market – Alleged collusion
Facts: Airtel and others accused Reliance Jio and TRAI (regulator) of acting in concert to offer predatory pricing and hurt incumbents.
Key Legal Point:
Whether CCI had jurisdiction to examine telecom tariff issues, or whether only TRAI could deal.
Ruling:
SC held that TRAI must first examine technical/tariff issues.
Only after that, CCI could examine anti-competitive conduct.
Importance:
Shows jurisdictional boundaries between regulators.
Administrative law principle of specialized expertise was upheld—different agencies must act within their sphere.
🔍 Summary Table of Key Themes
| Case | Key Issue | Competition Law Focus | Admin Law Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCC Online v. CCI | Abuse of dominance | Access to essential facility | Procedural fairness |
| Excel Crop Care | Cartel | Bid rigging | Penalty consistency |
| Artists’ Committee | Anti-competitive agreement | Association conduct | Definition of “enterprise” |
| Facebook v. CCI | Abuse of dominance | Data sharing policy | Investigative jurisdiction |
| United Brands | Predatory pricing | Pricing abuse | Evidence-based decision |
| Airtel v. CCI | Jurisdictional clash | Market entry issues | Regulator boundaries |
✅ Conclusion
Administrative law and competition policy are deeply interconnected. While competition law defines substantive rules against unfair market behavior, administrative law ensures that these rules are enforced fairly, transparently, and lawfully.
Understanding both is crucial for lawyers, regulators, and businesses alike. These landmark cases demonstrate how courts act as a check on regulatory overreach while supporting effective competition enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments