Scope of study

The scope of study of this project is limited to space and page limits of the project report. The
topic is wider and covers all aspects of competition law and all sectors that could possibly be
thought of. Only those regulators that are major and relevant have been mentioned.

INTRODUCTION OF COMPETITION LAW

In India, new regulatory bodies were being set up to tackle various issues emanating from private
players. The same concerns were also being felt about the competition arena. Prior to the early
1990s liberalization period, India had an operational competition law in the form of the
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969.The new paradigm of economic
reforms took effect in the early 1990s, the MRTP Act was found to be hardly adequate as a tool
and a law to regulate the market and ensure the promotion of competition. This saw a lengthy
process towards competition reforms, eventually resulting in the extant Competition Act, 2002
(as amended). This saw the creation of two competition bodies, the Competition Commission of
India (CCI) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT), to administer the competition law.

INTRODUCTION OF SECTOR REGULATORS

The pattern changed greatly, following a new wave characterized by liberalization, privatization
and globalization from the early 1990s, which saw a changing picture in the manner in which
economic activity was conducted. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was established on April
01, 1935, in line with the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 1. In the electricity
sector, the need for a regulator was only felt during the post-liberalization era, when it was felt
the coexistence of divergent private and government interests in the electricity sector warranted
the creation of an autonomous and independent regulator which was at arm’s length from the
government. This saw the Central and state electricity regulatory commissions being set up. In
some cases, the regulatory authorities were established well after the players had already begun

1
Research Paper prepared by Vijay Vir Singh, Fellow, CUTS International and Siddhartha Mitra, Director
(Research), CUTS International- https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/44925979.pdf
operating under the liberalized environment. For example, the telecommunications regulator, the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), was set up in 1997 at a time when mobile
services were already about two years in existence.

For instance, in Monnet Sugar Limited v. Union of India2- the Allahabad High Court dealt
with Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 which prior to the process of
liberalization was the epitome of license and permit controls. Indeed, economic reforms has led
government to reinvent itself through doing less “rowing” and more “steering”. For instance,
when government though it fit that the department of telecom cannot be regulator as well player
in the telecom sector it replaced the department of telecom with the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India.

EXAMPLES OF SECTOR REGULATORS AND ITS INTER RELATION

WITH COMPETITION LAW-

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD

In spite of the Competition Act, 2002 already, one of the objectives behind the Petroleum and
Natural Gas Regulatory Board is “to promote competitive markets” and “protect the interest of
consumers by fostering fair trade and competition amongst the entities”

The preamble to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board states that it an “Act to
provide for the establishment of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board to regulate the
refining, processing, storage, transportation, distribution, marketing and sale of petroleum,
petroleum products and natural gas excluding production of crude oil and natural gas so as to
protect the interests of consumers. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
(“PNGRB”) is mandated to be mindful of competition while dealing with access to common
carriers or contract carrier as well as distribution networks 3. Specifically, if PNGRB is interested
in declaring existing pipeline or distribution network as a common carrier, it still needs to be
guided by the principles of competition.

THE ELECTRICITY BOARD

2
Ibid
3
TCA Anant & S Sunder, “Interface between regulation and competition law” Towards a functional Competition
Policy for India”, ed.
The Electricity board is redolent of the conundrum caused by overlapping jurisdictions of
regulatory authorities in India. One of the objectives behind the Electricity Act is that of
promotion of competition. Indeed, the framers of the legislation also conferred power upon the
regulator to deal with anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position and mergers
related to impediment to competition in electricity. This is similar to the language used in section
3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 which pertain to anti-competitive agreements, abuse of
dominant position and regulation of combinations. The regulator, while fixing tariff levels, is to
be guided by the principle of competition and efficiency 4. In order to promote competition, it is
open to the regulator to issue directions to the licensees engaged in transmitting, distribution or
trading in electricity.

TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

The telecom regulator was established in order to ensure orderly development of telecom sector.
Accordingly, one of the critical functions of the telecom regulator is to facilitate competition and
promote efficiency. Nevertheless, the appellate authority established to adjudicate telecom
disputes excludes competition matters, albeit those arising under the old, MRTP Act. Unlike the
insurance regulator, the telecom regulator, does not have a generic, but a limited duty to aid other
authorities existing in the telecom sector and does not possess any overarching powers over other
regulators. Section 60 of the Electricity Act, 2003 states: “The Appropriate Commission may
issue such directions as it considers appropriate to a licensee or a generating company if such
licensee or generating company enters into any agreement or abuses its dominant position or
enters into a combination which is likely to cause or causes an adverse effect on competition in
electricity industry. TRAI and Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
were already vested with the “jurisdiction and responsibility to govern and regulate the
telecommunication industry covering telecom, broadcasting and cable TV services. The CCI,
however, held that any matter that raises competition concerns would fall within the purview of
the Competition Act, 2002 enabling CCI to exercise its jurisdiction.

INSURANCE REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

4
Ibid
IRDA was established in 1999 under the Insurance Regulation and Development Authority Act,
1999. The regulator was established to regulate, promote and ensure the proper growth and
development of the insurance and re-insurance sector. The duties of IRDA do not have much
overlaps with those of CCI, although it is important that the regulator be conscious of
competition provisions in pursuing some of its functions. For example, when the regulator
modifies, suspends or cancels registration for an entity, it is important that the effect on
competition be factored into the decision. In addition, when the regulator devises methods for
promoting efficiency in the conduct of insurance business as well as when adjudicating disputes
between insurers, it is also important to ensure that such decisions are not competition distorting.
IRDA‘s recently produced regulations on amalgamations and transfer of business also has the
potential to overlap with CCI‘s mandate to regulate combinations.

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

The RBI, which started operating on April 01, 1935, in line with the RBI Act of 1934, has a
myriad of objectives. These include ensuring monetary stability; operating the currency and
credit system of the country; foreign exchange and reserves management, government debt
management, financial regulation and supervision and acting as banker to the banks and to the
government. In that regard, its legislation bestows upon it powers to design and implement the
policy framework for banking and non-banking financial institutions, which generally serve to
provide people access to the banking system, protect depositors’ interest and maintain the overall
health of the financial system. In one the Bank Cases, “pre payment penalty case” CCI notices to
banks asking them to explain the imposition of penalty on borrowers for pre payment of home
loan. CCI ‘s notices is based on premise the pre payment penalty acts as a barrier by preventing
customers to shift their loans from one bank to another which offer better interest rates. Pre-
payment penalties have been in existence for a long time. However, its impact on the Banking
sector was never detected or analyzed by RBI, primarily because RBI officials haves not been
trained to do so. In fact just after CCI’s intervention a senior RBI official gave following
statement to medial” We will direct banks to do away with the pre payment penalty in case of
loan disbursed in Future.” It is clear that a regulatory loophole existed which need to be filled by
CCI.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

SEBI was established in terms of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, to
promote the development of the securities market as well as protecting the interests of the
investors in the sector. The Sections mandate SEBI to prohibit fraudulent and unfair trade
practices relating to securities markets and regulate substantial acquisition of shares and takeover
of companies in the sector. In that regard SEBI came up with the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition
of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (the Takeover Code). This outlines procedures
which SEBI expects stock exchange-listed firms to observe when merging. These mergers thus
pass through the scrutiny of the SEBI, which also brings in a possible overlap with CCI.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SECTOR REGULATORS AND COMPETITION LAW

The enforcement of competition law vary from sector to sector there are some sector where
sector regulation prevent competition law from being enforced and on the other hand there some
sector wher competition law is enforced under sector regulator.

The goals of sector regulations differ considerably from sector to sector5:

1. In telecommunication, electricity, gas, and rail transport, one goal of sector regulation is
usually to open these sectors to competition. In other sectors, such as professional services,
health services or environmental waste services, the goal of regulation is often to limit
competition because of some perceived market failure.

2. Some sectors the goal of the sector regulation is, at least in principle, not to promote or to
restrain competition but rather to pursue some other social goal. For example protect consumer
from fraud.

There are different types of relationship exit between sector regulator and Competition law. They
are:-

A. COMPLEMENTARY RELATIONSHIP

The competition law cannot fully deliver all its benefits and there is a need to monitor the
behavior of the incumbent operator. There is a need to define and control the access price to the
5
“Competition and Regulation in India 2009” ed. Pradeep S Mehta
facility to allow market entry. Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that monitoring the timing of
entry in the industry is also an important factor to ensure that entrants do not fail during the first
years following their entry. Thus it is argued that there is a specific need to monitor the sector.
This type of regulation is generally not inconsistent with competition law. The enforcement of
competition law may help ensure that the incumbent does not abuse its market power by
engaging in anticompetitive strategies.

B. CONFLICTING RELATIONSHIP

In this- Activities that are regulated are not directly subject to the Competition Act. It is evoked
as an interpretive tool developed by the courts to resolve apparent conflicts between two
different laws. The approach is to determine where the Competition Act and a statutory
regulatory regime are in conflict.

C. SELF REGULATIONS

There are cases in which the goal of regulation is to limit (or even eliminate) competition,
possibly because of a perceived market failure. These self regulations limit competition by
restricting entry, freedom of establishment, advertising and, in certain cases, price competition.
The official justification for these restrictions on competition is usually that consumers would be
unable to exercise their choice because of lack of information, all the more so that consulting
such professionals is usually not an often repeated experience, and therefore consumers need to
be protected against unfair practices. These type of relationship are seen in the European Union,
Mexico, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States6.

Area of Conflicts

The most common industries where competition law interacts with sector or industry specific
laws are in the network industries involving access to network facilities sometimes considered
as essential facilities or interconnection, monopoly pricing, anticompetitive agreements and
merger control.

The overlap problem and jurisdictional disputes arise in the following areas7:

6
“Competition and Regulation in India 2009” ed. Pradeep S Mehta
 1. Licensing Conditions: the number of licenses and the conditions of the licenses will
have an effect on the intensity of competition;
2. Dominance: market definition and assessment of dominance by the sector regulator in
establishing which operator should offer interconnection services on one hand and by the
competition authority in establishing abuse of market power by an operator;
3. Monopoly Pricing: some competition regimes include rules, which restrict excessive or
unjust prices. Such rules could also conflict with industry specific pricing rules
established under utility sector or industry specific regulation.
4. Restrictive Business Practices: where we have one vertically integrated monopoly firm
then there are no competitors, hence there is no one with which to enter into agreements
or to behave in a manner that would restrict or lessen competition in the market for
relevant services.
5. Merger Control: restriction on mergers between utilities and other firms, or restrictions
on reintegration, are often provided for under industry or sector specific regulatory laws.
In the new unbundled environment of infrastructure firms, common ownership for
example of generation firms with transmission or generation with distribution firms is
normally restricted under sector specific regulation.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN COMPETITION LAW AND SECTOR REGULATORS

Section 18 of the Competition Act, 2002 states that:-

“It shall be the duty of the Competition Commission of India to eliminate practices having
adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of
consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants, in markets in India”.

Undoubtedly, this mandate is extraordinarily wide. It is also agnostic about sector specific
regulators. A similar language has been used in the preamble. The preamble of Competition Act,
2002 reads, “An Act to provide keeping in view of the economic development, for establishment
of commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to prevent practices

7
“Theories of Economic Regulation”, Working Paper, No. 41, Center for Economic Analysis of Human Behavior and
Social Institutions.
having adverse effect on competition in market, to protect the interest of consumer to ensure
freedom of trade carried by other participants”8.

Competition authority could have potential interface with the jurisdiction of sector-specific
regulators viz. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (CERC), and Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB). The
Competition authority unites the power of private enforcement with the claim of damages and
hence can ensure healthy consumer welfare9.

Competition law seeks to promote efficient allocation and utilization of resources, which are
usually scarce in developing countries. A good competition law lowers the entry barriers in the
market and makes the environment conducive to promoting entrepreneurship. Regulations, on
the other hand, are public constraints on market behaviour or structure. They usually refer to a
diverse set of instruments by which governments set requirements on businesses and citizens.

The objective of a sector regulator is to provide good quality service at affordable rates, but the
promotion of competition and prevention of anticompetitive behaviour may not be high on its
agenda or the laws governing the regulator may be silent on this aspect. It is not uncommon for
sector regulators to be more closely aligned with the interest of the firms being regulated.

The following table, however, summarizes the difference in their approach:

8
O.P. Agrawal “Role of Independent Regulation in Economic Reforms”
http://www.teriin.org/upfiles//pub/papers/ft25.pdf
9
“Competition and Regulation in India 2007” edited by Pradeep S. Mehta, CUTS International
 Sector Regulators Competition Law

1. Sector specific Regulator tells 1. Tells businesses “what not to do”

businesses “what to do” and “how to 2. Focuses upon the entire economy and
price products” functioning of the market.
2. Focuses upon specific sectors of the 3. Ex post – addresses behavioral issues
economy. after problem arises.
3. Ex ante – addresses behavioral issues 4. Focus upon consumer welfare and
before problem arises. unfair transfer of wealth from
4. Focus upon orderly development of a consumers to firms with market power.
sector that would presumably trickle
down in a sector ensuring consumer
welfare.

Therefore, it is evident that the role of sector specific regulators is overlapping but quite distinct.
Unlike the sector specific regulators, competition authority takes a holistic view of the economy
and addresses behavioral issues after the problem arises. The competition authority also
addresses the unfair transfer of wealth that may take place between the consumers and firms
wielding market power.

The conflicts between CCI and the sector regulators could be caused by:

1. Legislative ambiguity or jurisdictional overlap or legislative omission. 2. Interpretational

bias involved could further aggravate the conflicts. 3. Conflicts between two may be generated
by the market players and legal arbitrators. 4. The tangled understanding of framers of the
legislation is evident both in recent legislations as well as past ones.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CASES OF CONFLICTS10

10
Bare Act Competition law 2002 - http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/actsbills/pdf/The_competition_Act_2002.pdf
Sec.21 Reference by Statutory: - Where in the course of a proceeding before any statutory
authority an issue is raised by any party that any decision which such statutory authority has
taken or proposes to take, is or would be, contrary to any of the provision of this Act, then such
statuary authority may make a reference in respect of such issue to the commission.

Sec.21A Reference by Commission: - Where in the course of a proceeding before the

commission an issue is raised by an party that any decision which the commission has taken
during such proceeding or proposes to take, is or would contrary to any provision of this Act
whose implementation is entrusted to a statutory authority, then the commission may make a
reference in respect of such issue to the statutory authority.

Sec.49 Competition Advocacy: - The Central Government may in Formulating a policy in

competition or any matter and State Government may in formulating a policy on competition
make a reference to the commission for it opinion on possible effect of such policy on
competition.