Latest news with #CompetitionActof2002
Economic Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
India's antitrust play needs a rewrite
India's economy is undergoing a dramatic transformation. But its competition policy feels like a relic. While the world redesigns antitrust frameworks for the digital age, India continues to address 21st-c. monopolies with tools that belong to the typewriter risk is not simply about policy lag. It's about allowing the marketplace to evolve into something it was never meant to be - a moat for incumbents, rather than a playground for new ideas. There is something oddly theatrical about India's markets. A few giants now play every role - producer, distributor, seller and reviewer. If capitalism were a Bollywood film, we would be somewhere deep into the second act. The camera never pans away from the stars. The script is over-designed, the plot barely believable, and the supporting cast is left applauding from the wings. What this production lacks is direction. A strong antitrust regime should function as the off-stage hand that can stop the show when the ensemble is replaced by a with the illusion of choice. Consumers seem to have endless options. Multiple apps, brands and platforms. In reality, their decisions are quietly managed by default settings, recommendation engines and closed ecosystems. You think you are shopping around. You are actually walking a hallway with two doors, both leading to the same room. This isn't a marketplace of ideas. It's an orchestra conducted by a duopoly that writes both the score and the Competition Act of 2002 was well-intended. But it was born in a simpler time. It functions well in hindsight. It spots the corpse, but doesn't see the murder coming. In a world where algorithmic decisions are made in milliseconds, retrospective enforcement is like sending a telegram after a don't need more post-mortems. We need a pre-emptive immune system. One that stops dominance before it trouble is not confined to digital platforms. The same centralisation is quietly embedding itself into India's physical infrastructure. Ports, airports, fibre networks, toll roads, data centres - arteries of the economy are increasingly controlled by a select few. When a single group manages warehouse, gateway, fibre pipe and checkout, what you have is not a supply chain but a bottleneck with a business are left with the 'invisible tax of absence'. No second airport terminal, no rival broadband, no alternative toll road. Choice, in infrastructure, is not a feature. It is the foundation. And that foundation is steadily being the world, competition authorities have shifted focus. The EU's Digital Markets Act targets gatekeepers who control access to platforms and users. It forbids self-preferencing, demands data separation and insists on real interoperability. Britain followed with its 2024 legislation that empowers regulators to intervene before harm becomes US, traditionally more lenient, is catching up. Federal Trade Commission, under Lina Khan, has taken on Big Tech with a zeal not seen in decades. Lawsuits have replaced policy briefs, and default settings are now considered battlegrounds for competition. Even Japan and South Korea have started examining algorithmic bias and platform approach is more opaque, but no less firm. When its regulators bring down a tech giant, it's often swift and politically aligned. The message is simple: no company grows beyond the state's comfort is inching towards the future with its proposed Digital Competition Bill. The Bill seeks to impose obligations on 'systemically significant digital intermediaries', asking them to behave more like neutral infrastructure and less like landlords with a favourite tenant. No bundling. No unfair ranking. No quiet preference for in-house brands. It borrows from Brussels, adapts for Delhi, and if enforced well, it could make up for decades of policy without it, the market won't crash but congeal. Space for startups will shrink, funding will chase favour rather than innovation. The price of admission will no longer be a good idea but a good relationship with the policy is not a punishment for success. It's a safety net for fairness. It ensures that achievement does not calcify into entitlement. It reminds us that markets are not meant to be gated estates where old money and new data sit comfortably, sipping stands at a crucial fork. One road leads to genuine plurality - more products, platforms, participants. The other leads to a curated monopoly garden where every flower is owned, every bench reserved, and the public is welcome only on guided market is not your mother. It does not love you unconditionally. It will not hold your hand through failure, or clap for your potential. It'll reward dominance if no one stops it. And punish aspiration if no one protects it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Can Coforge's ambition to lead the IT Industry become a reality? BlackRock returns, this time with Ambani. Will it be lucky second time? Amazon is making stealthy moves in healthcare, here's why! The trader who blew the whistle on Jane Street Stock Radar: Globus Spirits breaks out from 9-month consolidation; check target & stop loss for long positions Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus These large-caps have 'strong buy' & 'buy' recos and an upside potential of more than 25% Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and upside potential of up to 36% in 1 year
Mint
22-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Competition: We must raise the CCI's tooth-to-tail ratio
India's new-age antitrust regulator turned 16 recently, bravely battling the symptoms and causes of its troublesome teens. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), the country's post-autarkic inheritor of a role once played by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, was born with a lag. The CCI was created by the Competition Act of 2002, more than a decade after India opened its economy to global rivalry, but became fully operational as an antitrust watchdog only in 2009; it was bogged down by court cases against its founding. Also Read: Decoding the Supreme Court's decision: Implications for India's merger control regime It found itself hobbled by a conflict between its mandate to enforce a modern competition law—one that seeks to address abuses of market dominance, other anti-competitive practices and hurdles erected against free and fair forces of rivalry—and illusions within India Inc of a free-market turn in economic policy spelling a free-for-all in terms of business conduct. Government controls over it, especially through the selection of its chair, placed its independence in a grey zone. As an institution, it struggles with gaps in capacity that make it harder to foster a market system that's always just to all participants and never loaded against the consumer. Also Read: What the overhaul of India's merger control regime means Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman's address on the CCI's 16th annual day offers some key markers for the regulator's journey into an uncertain future. While she outlined the importance of its basic role, the minister emphasized a need for it to strike a balance between its regulatory alertness and the cause of securing the economy's growth impulses. A resilient, equitable and innovation-driven economic framework would become increasingly indispensable if the economy had to depend more on domestic growth levers in the face of adverse trade winds and steep energy-transition pathways. The CCI's task has been complicated by a globalized digital economy full of monopolies, to handle which she said global cooperation was required. She flagged the risk of value erosion due to delayed clearances and reminded us that India's regulatory efficiency was under global watch. Sitharaman's speech also alluded to her budget-speech mention of light-touch regulation that trusts economic agents to abide by rules as they deliver on productivity, job creation and other variables to drive up India's output. It is true that over-regulation gets in the way of enterprise. Yet, the CCI can hardly be faulted on that score. As far as antitrust goes, it has long been clear that the regulator needs to be more effective. Most visibly, the country seems to have little relief from the impact on airfares of an oligopoly in our aviation market. Also Read: Why CCI matters for protecting customers from digital players The CCI's core operations need an upgrade. Perceptions of its weak tooth-to-tail ratio have persisted, which only makes it harder for it to keep corporate abuse of market power in check. There have been various reports of how the CCI has been unable to collect the monetary penalties it imposed as part of its job, primarily due to perverse incentives available in challenging CCI decisions. In any case, the CCI faces numerous legal suits, which is not a surprise given how often courts have ruled that its actions trespassed on the turf of other regulators; the Competition Act's prerogative over other economic laws (or lack thereof) is clouded in ambiguity. Also, the CCI's bench-capacity inadequacy must be addressed right away. The economy must expand as fast as it can, no doubt, but it cannot afford to let the CCI trail market dynamics. Digital complexity alone demands antitrust urgency.
