CCI v. TRAI: Regulatory Framework for Better Coordination and Interoperability


Ritima Singh


Section 18 of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) holds the Competition Commission of India (CCI) responsible for promoting and sustaining competition in markets in India. This duty of CCI is reinforced through the twin mirror reflection provisions provided in Sections 21 and 21A of the Act. Evidently, the Act holds robust provisions for inter-regulatory consultation and coordination. However, referring to the annual reports of CCI, it appears that, in the preceding 10 years, no reference has been made by any sectoral regulator to CCI. Thus, even though a robust regulatory architecture of interoperability exists, it is not being used to its optimum potential. This lack of inter-regulatory consultation has often resulted in protracted litigation, of which CCI vs. Bharti Airtel Limited (2019) is a classic example, wherein the apex court highlighted that comity between the sectoral regulator and the market regulator, i.e., CCI, is a crucial aspect of market regulation and must be exercised effectively. In order to strengthen competition in the market, it is essential that both CCI and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) function in an atmosphere of mutual cooperation and consultation. This paper seeks to critically analyse the legal and regulatory framework, judicial pronouncements, and recent public policy developments in India to support the coordination and consultation framework between TRAI and CCI, while drawing a comparison to international best practices. The paper attempts to bring forth a potential framework to support and enhance the coordination and interoperability between CCI and TRAI in an effective manner.


How to Cite
Singh, R. (2023). CCI v. TRAI: Regulatory Framework for Better Coordination and Interoperability. Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy, 4(1), 77–91.


  1. Anant, T., & Sunder, S. (2005). Interface between regulation and competition law: Towards a functional competition policy for India. Academic Foundation.
  2. Basant, R., & Morris, S. (2000). Competition policy in India: Issues for a globalising economy. Econ. & Pol. Weekly, 35, 2735, 2737.
  3. Bhatia, G.R. (2021). Inter regulatory consultation between competition and sectoral regulator. Regulatory Affairs Bulletin. images/foirnews/G.R-Bhatia-COMPETITION-REGULATOR.pdf
  4. CCI. (2021). Introduction to competition law. public/images/publications_booklet/en/introduction-to-competition- law-part-5-regulatory-bodies-and-coordination-between-thecompeti1652182541. pdf
  5. Chakravarthy, S. (2006). Why India adopted a new competition law.
  6. Competition Act, 2002, §18
  7. Competition Act, 2002, §21
  8. Competition Act, 2002, §21A
  9. Mehta, P. S., & Ghuma, P. S. (2018). Did the SC solve the impasse between India’s competition and telecom regulators? The Wire. https://thewire. in/business/did-the-sc-solve-the-impasse-between-indias-competition- and-telecom-regulators
  10. Ministry of Corporate Affairs. (2011). The Draft National Competition Policy. Competition_Policy.pdf
  11. MOU. (2015). MoU between CMA and payment systems regulator. https:// data/file/487947/PSRCMA_memorandum_of_understanding.pdf
  12. MOU. (2016). MoU between CMA and Office of Communications. https:// ofcom_mou_on_use_of_concurr ent_consumer_powers_webversion. pdf
  13. OECD. (1998). Relationship between regulators and competition authorities. DAFFE/CLP(99)8. sectors/1920556.pdf
  14. Planning Commission, Government of India. (2007). Report of the working group on the competition law. plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v1/11th_vol1.pdf
  15. Pravankalyan. (2020). How Reliance Jio proved that free services by it were not anti-competitive. Taxguru. proved-free-services-anti-competitive.html
  16. PTI. (2017). TRAI tells CCI it has the power to settle competitive telecom tariff issues. has-power-to-settle-competitive-telecom-tariffissues/798026/
  17. Sahithya, M., & Chakraborty, A. (2019). Sector regulator and Competition Commission: Envisaging a movement from turf war to reconciliation. Nalsar L. Rev., 125(11), 138.
  18. Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal. Sea T.V. Network Ltd. vs Star India Pvt. Ltd., 17 January 2006.
  19. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. (2016). A Twenty Year Odyssey 1997-2017. TwentyYear_Odyssey_1997_2017.pdf
  20. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. (2017). Consultation Paper on Regulatory Principles of Tariff Assessment. sites/default/files/Consultation_paper_03_17_feb_17_0.pdf
  21. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. (2018). The Telecommunication Tariff (Sixty Third Amendment) Order, 2018. default/files/TTO_Amendment_Eng_16022018.pdf
  22. The Hindu Business Line. (2018). Turf war rages between CCI and TRAI over telecom tariffs. turf-war-ragesbetween-cci-and-trai-over-telecom-tariffs/ article9791247.ece
  23. TRAI Act 1997, §2(k)
  24. TRAI Act, §11
  25. TRAI Act, §14
  26. UNCTAD. (2006). Best Practices for Defining Respective Competences and Settling of Cases, which Involve Joint Action by Competition Authorities and Regulatory Bodies.