Competition law in India is designed to promote fair competition, prevent market distortions, and protect consumer welfare while encouraging innovation and economic efficiency. The governing statute, the Competition Act, 2002, enforced by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), reflects India’s shift from a controlled economy to a market-oriented regulatory framework. The Indian competition regime broadly aligns with global best practices, particularly those followed in the European Union (EU) and the United States (USA), while retaining distinct enforcement characteristics suited to India’s economic structure.

The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and combinations (mergers and acquisitions) that cause or are likely to cause an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) in India. Its application across both public and private sectors underscores a neutral and comprehensive regulatory approach.

Indian competition law recognises both horizontal agreements—such as cartels, price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation—and vertical agreements, including exclusive supply arrangements, resale price maintenance, and refusal to deal. Horizontal agreements are presumed to be anti-competitive, mirroring the EU’s treatment of hardcore cartels and the US doctrine of per se illegality. However, India adopts a more nuanced stance by permitting limited efficiency justifications, placing it closer to the EU’s effects-based analysis rather than the rigid US approach.

The provisions on abuse of dominant position prohibit unfair pricing, restriction of output, denial of market access, and leveraging dominance across markets. Unlike US antitrust law, which primarily focuses on consumer price effects and monopolization, Indian law—similar to EU competition jurisprudence—places greater emphasis on market structure, exclusionary conduct, and competitive fairness, even in the absence of immediate consumer harm.

India follows a mandatory pre-notification merger control regime, under which combinations meeting jurisdictional thresholds require CCI approval. The assessment framework is comparable to the EU Merger Regulation and the US HSR regime, though Indian practice demonstrates faster clearance timelines and a growing preference for behavioural or structural remedies over outright prohibition.

The CCI exercises extensive investigative and adjudicatory powers, including suo motu investigations, dawn raids, penalties up to 10% of turnover, and leniency provisions for cartel participants. India’s leniency regime is closely modelled on the EU framework, whereas the US relies more heavily on criminal prosecution and plea bargaining.

Indlex Analysis:
India’s competition law regime reflects an evolving balance between regulatory oversight and market freedom. Its increasing convergence with EU-style effects-based enforcement, combined with pragmatic merger review and robust investigative powers, makes antitrust compliance and strategic advisory critical for businesses operating in or entering the Indian market. Effective engagement with the CCI, proactive compliance mechanisms, and informed merger planning are essential to mitigate regulatory risk and ensure sustainable market participation.