Kerala High Court Upholds Competition Commission of India’s Jurisdiction Over Broadcaster Jiostar India Pvt Ltd in Anti-Competitive Practices Case

Court clarifies interplay between Competition Act, 2002 and TRAI Act, 1997, affirming CCI’s authority to investigate abuse of dominance despite overlapping telecom regulations

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 3, 2025, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the writ appeal filed by Jiostar India Private Limited (formerly Star India Private Limited) challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) jurisdiction to investigate allegations of abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002. The case arose from a complaint by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited (ADNPL), a regional multi-system operator (MSO), accusing Jiostar and its group companies of discriminatory pricing and denial of market access in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act.

The appellant contended that the dispute fell exclusively within the regulatory ambit of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) under the TRAI Act, 1997 and its 2017 Broadcasting and Cable Services Interconnection Regulations. They argued that the CCI’s order directing investigation by the Director General (DG) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act was premature and without jurisdiction, especially since TRAI was the “sectoral regulator” for telecom and broadcasting sectors.

However, the Kerala High Court upheld the CCI’s jurisdiction and rejected the appellant’s contention that the TRAI Act ousted the Competition Act in matters involving anti-competitive conduct. The Court extensively analyzed the statutory frameworks of both enactments and referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited (2019) 2 SCC 521. The Court distinguished the Bharti Airtel case on facts, noting that the Supreme Court’s observations about TRAI’s jurisdiction were limited to disputes already pending before TRAI, unlike the present case where no grievance was raised before TRAI.

The Court emphasized that the Competition Act is a special, sui generis legislation with a broad mandate to promote competition and regulate anti-competitive practices across all sectors, including broadcasting and telecom. It noted the non-obstante clause under Section 60 of the Competition Act which grants it overriding effect over other inconsistent laws such as the TRAI Act. The Court held that both the TRAI Act and Competition Act are special enactments operating concurrently within their respective domains and can proceed in parallel without one eclipsing the other.

Importantly, the Court observed that the dispute transcended mere violations of TRAI regulations and implicated abuse of dominant position through “sham marketing agreements” used to provide excessive discounts to competitors, disadvantaging ADNPL. The TRAI itself has clarified through its explanatory memorandum that marketing fees paid between service providers for promotion fall outside its regulatory purview. Thus, the CCI is the competent authority to investigate such anti-competitive conduct.

The Court also clarified that an order under Section 26(1) directing investigation is an administrative order expressing a prima facie view, and does not require prior hearing or adjudication of jurisdiction. The appellant retains the right to raise all objections, including jurisdictional challenges, before the CCI after the investigation report is submitted. The Court directed the CCI to decide the jurisdiction issue through a reasoned order post investigation and to complete the entire inquiry within eight weeks.

This judgment reaffirms the independent and robust role of the Competition Commission of India as the market regulator empowered to curb anti-competitive practices, even in sectors regulated by specialized sectoral authorities like TRAI. It clarifies the coexistence and interplay between the Competition Act and sector-specific laws, providing legal certainty to broadcasters, distributors, and telecom service providers operating in the complex regulatory environment.

Bottom Line:

Competition Commission of India (CCI) possesses jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act, 2002, even in presence of overlapping regulatory domain of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) under TRAI Act, 1997; both Acts operate concurrently with CCI having overriding effect under its non-obstante clause.

Statutory provision(s): Competition Act, 2002 Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 21, 21-A, 26, 27, 28, 36, 60, 61, 62; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 Sections 11, 12, 14; Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 Regulation 7

Jiostar India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2817399