Evolving Competition Law Jurisprudence In India : Role Of Procedural Justice (Case Comment on BCCI V. CCI & Surinder Singh Barmi)

Abstract

Thus, COMPAT in the BCCI order has clarified on several procedural issues grappling the CCI as well as the competition law litigants in India. To a great extent, COMPAT's order puts finality on the status of CCI that it performs a judicial/quasi judicial function. By virtue of this, CCFs orders must also adhere to the principles of natural justice, which must be complied at every stage of CCI's proceedings including at the time of DG report or providing an opportunity to the opposite party to rebut the evidence furnished against it. Similarly, it has been clarified that CCI is free to deviate from the findings recorded in the DG report as it ought to neutrally evaluate the case before it. However, if there has been a deviation from the specific findings of the DG report, e.g. determination of relevant market which is the core pillar in any competition law claim of abuse of dominance, the opposite party must be put to notice and to that extent sufficient opportunity must be given to the parties to rebut such findings. CCI must also refrain from concluding on contraventions of the Act based on media reports and data downloaded from the internet which remain uncorroborated without affidavits and other testimonies. These further raise the standard of proof for litigants as the Commission may now be more pro-active in involving technical experts and/or relying on evidence which is more conclusive. Therefore, COMPAT's order in the BCCI case has paved a path for competition litigation where procedural fairness gains paramount importance, equivalent to the substantive issues of law, economics and policy enumerated in the Act.