Competition Commission Dismisses Allegations Against BSNL for Abuse of Dominant Position
Lack of Evidence Leads CCI to Close Case Against BSNL Under Competition Act, 2002
In a recent ruling dated October 7, 2025, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed the case filed by M/s C.C.L. Optoelectronics Pvt. Ltd. against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), alleging abuse of dominant position and unfair trade practices. The commission found no substantial evidence to support the allegations, leading to the closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
M/s C.C.L. Optoelectronics Pvt. Ltd., the informant, accused BSNL of imposing contradictory tender conditions to favor selected bidders and restrict competition in the market for telecommunication services. The complaint was associated with a tender for the supply of Splice Closure for Optical Fiber Cables, wherein the informant claimed disqualification from the bidding process despite meeting certain eligibility criteria as a Micro and Small Enterprise (MSME).
The CCI, chaired by Ms. Ravneet Kaur and comprising members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag, delineated the relevant market as the "Market for Telecommunication Services in India." Upon examination, the commission concluded that BSNL, with a market share of only 2.09%, did not hold a dominant position compared to other major players like Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel. The commission emphasized that dominance is a prerequisite for establishing abuse, which was absent in this case.
Furthermore, the commission addressed the informant's grievances concerning the tender process. It was noted that the disqualification was due to non-compliance with 'Past Performance Criteria,' not the 'Bidder Turnover Criteria' or 'Experience Criteria.' The commission observed that the informant failed to utilize the representation window on the Government e Marketplace (GeM) platform, which could have potentially addressed their concerns before bid opening.
Despite allegations of unfair practices, including changes in technical specifications and conditions that might favor certain bidders, the commission found these issues to be under the purview of the tendering authority rather than competition law. The commission remarked that dissatisfaction with tender terms does not inherently imply abuse of dominance.
Ultimately, the commission found no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Consequently, the application for interim relief under Section 33 was also dismissed. This judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with substantial evidence when alleging anti-competitive practices.
Bottom Line:
Abuse of Dominant Position - Allegation of unfair and restrictive trade practices through contradictory tender conditions and favouring selected bidders - Commission held that absence of dominance and lack of evidence to establish abuse of dominant position led to closure of matter.
Statutory provision(s): Competition Act, 2002 Sections 4, 26(2), 33
