This article is written by Kanak Barna, a student of ll.b at Law centre-II, Delhi University.

Competition law is a law that elevates or looks to keep up market Competition by controlling the enemy of serious lead by organizations. Competition law is actualized through open and private implementation. Competition law is known as antitrust law in the United States for chronicled reasons, and as against imposing business model law in China and Russia. In earlier years it has been known as an exchange specializing in legal matters in the United Kingdom and Australia. In the European Union, it is alluded to as both antitrust and Competition law. Present day Competition law has truly advanced on a public level to advance and keep up reasonable Competition in business sectors primarily inside the regional limits of country states. Public Competition law normally doesn’t cover action past regional lines except if it has huge impacts at country state level. Nations may consider extraterritorial purview in Competition cases dependent on alleged “impacts convention”. The assurance of global Competition is administered by worldwide Competition arrangements. In 1945, during the dealings going before the selection of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, restricted worldwide Competition commitments were proposed inside the Charter for an International Trade Organization. These commitments were excluded from GATT, yet in 1994, with the completion of the Uruguay Round of GATT multilateral exchanges, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was made. The Agreement Establishing the WTO remembered a scope of restricted arrangements for different cross-line Competition issues on an area explicit basis.Competition: which means and advantages Competition is a circumstance in market, wherein dealers freely make progress toward purchaser’s support to accomplish business targets. Competition and advancement, together release the enterprising powers in the economy. Competition offers a wide cluster of decisions to buyers at sensible costs, invigorates advancement and profitability, and prompts ideal distribution of assets. 


Three-stage transition

The Act provides for a three-stage transition, spanning the first three years from the date of notification of the Act, wherein the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter, referred to as “CCI”) would replace the MRTP Commission.

First phase

  • At the onset of its initiation, MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (MRTP), 1969 Commission will cease to exist and CCI would assume the role of an advisory body.
  • The pending cases in the MRTP Commission relating to unfair trade practices would be transferred to the concerned consumer courts under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • The pending cases relating to monopolistic and restrictive trade practices have to be taken up for adjudication by CCI.

Second year

  • During the second year, CCI would scrutinize the anti-competitive practices.

Third year

  • During the third year, CCI would begin regulating the mergers and acquisitions that will have an adverse impact on competition.

Departure from the MRTP Act

In a significant departure from the letter and spirit of the MRTP Act, the Act hinges on the “Effect Theory” and does not categorically decry or condemn the existence of a monopoly in the relevant market, rather the use of the monopoly status such that it operates to the detriment of the potential and actual competitors are sought to be curbed.

  • The earlier legislation, considered draconian in the changed scenario, was based on the size as a factor, while the new law is based on structure as a factor, aimed at bringing relief to the players in the market.
  • The Act empowers CCI to impose a penalty on delinquent enterprises, whereas in the MRTP Act there were no provisions regarding such enterprises
  • MRTP Act could only pass “cease and desist” orders and did not have any other powers to prevent or punish while the new law contained punitive provisions.
  • MRTP Act was applicable to Private and Public sector undertakings only, whereas, the new Act extends its reach to governmental departments engaged in business activities.
  • As regards agreements, compulsory registration has been done away with.
  • The most path-breaking chapter in the Act has been the emphasis on Competition Advocacy that was not at all contemplated by the MRTP Act.


I. To check anti-competitive practices

II. To prohibit abuse of dominance

III. Regulation of combinations.

IV. To provide for the establishment of CCI, a quasi-judicial body to perform the below mentioned duties:

  • Prevent practices from having an adverse impact on competition
  • Promote and sustain competition in the market
  • Protect consumer interests at large
  • Ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in the market
  • Look into matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Amendments of the act

The Competition Law Review Committee (CLRC) was set up on October first, 2018 to audit the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) and other accidental standards. Remembering the requirement for a powerful system because of the development of more up to date and problematic models of business, the CLRC delivered its report in July 2019. In the wake of certain changes proposed by the CLRC, the draft Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (Bill) was formed in February 2020 for public remarks. The Bill contains certain weighty corrections which could totally enhance the competition  system in India.

  1. Supervision of the Director-General office

The workplace of the Director-General (DG) has been proposed to be coordinated into the principle body of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Further, the arrangements of the staff of the DG office will currently be controlled by the CCI. The CCI at present directs the activities of DG.  In any case, when the DG’s office is incorporated into the CCI, it can straightforwardly direct the exercises of the DG office. 

As of now, all the staff of the DG office are designated by the public authority on nomination. This can at times lead to a deficiency of staff because of the postponement in the arrangement interaction by the public authority. In addition, it hinders the degree for specialization and institutional memory in the DG office. In this manner, the said combination is a huge change as it can encourage a productive climate wherein the mastery and information on the DG staff and the staff of the CCI can be traded.

  1. Increasing the capacity of the CCI

The Act commands that the CCI ought to involve one executive and six individuals (all entire time individuals). Notwithstanding, the public authority had confined the strength of the CCI to just four individuals. Considering something very similar, the Bill suggests that the CCI should involve one director and six individuals. Notwithstanding, the severe execution of similar remaining parts is not yet clear.

  1. Formation of governing board

Further, the Bill has recommended that the Chairman may set up a board including three Whole Time Members. This will give a chance to two boards to settle at the same time consequently multiplying the limit of the CCI to discard orders. For example, one board can settle matters identifying with consolidations while the other can mediate issues concerning prevailing maltreatment. The Bill has proposed the development of an overseeing load up (load up) which will comprise of the individuals from the commission, two ex-officio individuals as endorsed under the Bill and four low maintenance individuals delegated by the Central Government. The board will have the ability to oversee the undertakings of the CCI, make guidelines on Competition, go into contracts for the benefit of the CCI, help the public authority in the development of a public Competition strategy and so on At the start, the presence of the board may decidedly affect the significant choices of the CCI. Nonetheless, the board may reduce the independence vested with the CCI under the past system since it may override certain choices of the CCI. For example, since the board has the ability to go into contracts for the CCI, it may do so regardless of whether the CCI is against such an agreement. In this way, it is important to bring up that the autonomy of the CCI should not be hampered when it practices semi legal forces in choosing against trust cases. In addition, since the load up involves low maintenance individuals, it will encourage the acceptance of outside specialists into the board. These specialists can give their consultations and important contributions during the procedures of the board. The low compensations given by the public authority bodies have consistently been a deterrent in drawing in the prominent characters from the private area into administrative bodies like the CCI. Henceforth, the acceptance of low maintenance individuals into the board who won’t expect a high compensation is a much needed development for the CCI.

  1. Introduction of inclusive definitions

The Bill has tried to extend the domain of specific definitions. They are expressed beneath: 

  • In the conventional sense, cartels are relationships of makers/producers and the merchants that take choices on the whole to influence the costs of a product and advance the enemy of serious practices on the lookout. In any case, to successfully manage the exercises of cartels, the Bill has expanded the meaning of the cartel to incorporate the relationship of purchasers under its ambit to secure buyer interests and to make the market without such practices. The Bill proposes to incorporate an element paying little mind to its authoritative document or status, likewise including units, divisions and auxiliaries under the domain of an ‘venture’. Such a revision will bring a wide range of undertakings under CCI in this manner making its administrative system more broad. 
  • The Bill proposes to grow the meaning of ‘important item market’ to involve all items or administrations wherein the creation or supply are viewed as compatible or substitutable by a provider. This inclusion will enlarge the extent of ‘applicable item market’ which assures to switch creation between such items, administration and advertising without confronting extra expenses or dangers because of little and perpetual changes in the relative valuing. The Bill has approved the CCI and the Central Government to command new limits for consolidation warnings. The new orders that can be told because of public interest permit CCI to set out certain area explicit limits dependent on the size of the exchange or the arrangement esteem. It is important to bring up that Bill has joined this revision from the CLRC’s proposition to investigate exchanges completed in the computerized market.  Inferable from the unique idea of the advanced area, the said correction may prompt an expansion in consistency costs for such organizations accordingly influencing the simplicity of working together for such organizations. Along these lines, it becomes relevant that the limits are ordered solely after giving broad monetary and lawful appraisal for the equivalent.
  1. Effective regulation of combinations

The Bill proposes to change section 5 of the Act which directs the mixes in Competition Law. The blend is an arrangement for a consolidation between at least two endeavors or firms or the business area acquisitions by other business undertakings constrained by the public authority to advance Competition so that little ventures are not overwhelmed and dominated by huge undertakings. The proposed bill has made critical corrections regarding the survey interaction of mixes. The legal blend survey timetable which is as of now 210 days has been changed to 150 days with an augmentation of 30 days in outstanding instances of default in structure documenting or according to popular demand of the gatherings, in the bill. Also, the timetable for all Phase 1 endorsements have been decreased to 20 days from 30 days to facilitate the cycle. Further, the Bill has added two stipulations to segment 5 of the Act which expresses that the public authority in the light of public interest and in conference with the board sets out specific models for the documenting of blends. It is additionally explained in the second stipulation that the estimation of resources or turnover or standards recommended for the ventures being procured, taken control, blended or amalgamated ought not surpass such an incentive as endorsed by the Central Government in conference with the Commission occasionally. Likewise, undertakings can’t make offers or buy stocks without CCI endorsement. This correction guarantees a proactive methodology by the public authority and the CCI to control mix related issues in Competition law. Additionally, the Bill tries to change Section 6 of the Act which expresses that on the off chance that any bogus data is given by any undertaking, at that point the CCI can decline to concede endorsement or assuming an endorsement is now in truth, such endorsement will be viewed as void-stomach muscle initio. Be that as it may, the correction protects the common equity standards and the ‘Option to be heard’ is to be given to the gatherings concerned.


In general, the Bill has stopped the clauses which existed under the past system to set up a vigorous structure. In any case, Bill’s position on the oversight of the constitution of a different NCLAT seat for arbitration of Competition cases proposed by the CLRC should be reexamined since it can diminish the weight of NCLAT. While the corrections have found some kind of harmony between the interests of the CCI and the partners in question, the effect of the exacting execution of similar remaining parts is not yet clear.