What the Two Parliamentary Reports Mean for Antitrust Enforcement in India

Within a month, two Parliamentary committees have put India’s competition law framework under close scrutiny. On 21 July 2026, the Rajya Sabha Committee on Subordinate Legislation examined the framework of penalty, commitment and settlement in India (“Rajya Sabha Report”). On 10 August 2026, the Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Finance reviewed action taken on its earlier recommendations on the evolving role of the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) in the digital economy (“Lok Sabha Report”).

Read together, the reports point in the same direction. Parliament wants a more proactive CCI: one that recommends faster adoption of ex ante digital regulation, strengthens enforcement, and keeps Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (“MSMEs”), start-ups and smaller market participants at the centre of competition policy.

Key business takeaways : Legal and Policy Perspective

Ex ante regulation is now the policy priority. Digital platforms should prepare for earlier intervention, closer monitoring of self-preferencing, tying, bundling, predatory pricing, and algorithmic conduct, and an ex ante regulation process shaped by market studies rather than blanket prohibitions. A one-size-fits-all approach to digital markets does not work.

MSME protection is no longer a secondary theme. Parliament has repeatedly pushed for safeguards against killer acquisitions, deep discounting, data-access barriers, and platform neutrality concerns that can disadvantage smaller businesses.

Businesses should engage early. Companies in cloud, virtual assistant, e-commerce, marketplace, AI and data-intensive sectors should participate in market studies and review compliance programmes before ex ante obligations are finalised.

Lok Sabha Report : Ex ante regulation and MSME protection in digital markets

BACKGROUND

On 11 August 2025, the Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Finance presented a report on the ‘Evolving Role of CCI in the Economy, particularly the Digital Landscape’. It recommended that a nuanced approach should be adopted towards the proposed Digital Competition Bill ("DCB") by refining the thresholds for designation to avoid capturing fast-growing domestic firms, avoiding blanket prohibitions, allowing for context-specific assessments, providing procedural safeguards to ensure fairness, and strengthening institutional capacity.

The Lok Sabha Report has audited the action taken on these recommendations.

Key recommendations and what they mean for stakeholders

1. Ex-post enforcement judged inadequate:

The Standing Committee found that traditional ex post enforcement is too slow for fast-moving digital markets. By the time investigations conclude, network effects, data advantages and gatekeeper power may already have weakened rivals. The committee therefore pushed for a shift from reactive enforcement to proactive ex ante regulation, supported by a Competition Assessment Framework and Competition Impact Assessments for new regulations.

2. Immediate finalisation of the DCB:

The Standing Committee pressed for finalisation of the DCB, with virtual assistants and cloud services brought within its scope. It also recommended a “Strategic Steer” to direct CCI to prioritise MSMEs and start-ups, and to integrate the Digital Markets Division (“DMD”) into ex ante oversight of Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises (“SSDEs”).

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) for its part, has committed to an evidence-based, adaptive approach in finalising the DCB.

Business takeaway : India is moving steadily towards ex ante digital regulation, but the process remains evidence-led and incremental. Businesses in cloud, virtual assistant, platform and AI-enabled markets should engage with the market study and test how proposed obligations may affect product design, data access and partner relationships.

3. Calibrating the ex ante model against the DMA - thresholds, core digital services and a rebuttal mechanism:

On the design of ex ante regulation, the Standing Committee observed that although the DCB and the EU's Digital Markets Act ("DMA") share the goal of regulating large digital enterprises, they diverge in important respects. The DCB currently proposes nine core digital services (one fewer than the DMA) and, unlike the DMA, uses a "spread test" based on either end-user or business-user thresholds (rather than the DMA's requirement of both). The DCB also grants the CCI flexibility to specify distinct conduct obligations for each core digital service through subordinate legislation and has no rebuttal mechanism for enterprises designated as SSDEs.

Stakeholders had earlier warned that the proposed thresholds risk capturing fast-growing Indian firms prematurely and may overlap with existing laws such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The Standing Committee accordingly recommended refining the DCB’s thresholds and designation criteria to avoid inadvertently sweeping in domestic firms and introducing a rebuttal mechanism in exceptional cases to ensure fairness and regulatory certainty.

4. Institutional capacity and resource gaps :

CCI's ability to effectively regulate India's dynamic markets, particularly the complex digital economy, is significantly influenced by its institutional capacity, especially in terms of human resources and specialized technical expertise. Accordingly, the Standing Committee recommended that the MCA expedite cadre restructuring, expand sanctioned strength for specialised roles (including data scientists, technologists and market analysts), ensure adequate funding and invest continuously in AI and algorithmic-modelling training.

5. Protection of MSMEs and small businesses :

This was the one recommendation where the MCA’s response did not satisfy the Standing Committee. It remained concerned that large firms may acquire smaller targets without scrutiny, and that data silos, algorithmic self-preferencing and deep discounting may distort markets without being captured by existing rules. It reiterated four priorities:

Risk-based, sector-specific review of the Deal Value Threshold;

An E-commerce Code of Conduct covering platform neutrality, algorithmic transparency and non-discriminatory data access;

Full integration of the DMD as a technical facilitator in line with the EU's Platform-to-Business Regulation; and clear guidance on when predatory pricing and deep discounting become anti-competitive.

Business takeaway : MSME protection will remain a live policy priority. E-commerce platforms, marketplaces and large acquirers should expect closer scrutiny of discounting, data access, neutrality and small-target acquisitions.

6. Cross-jurisdictional and inter-regulatory coordination :

The Standing Committee recognised that digital markets transcend borders and cut across regulatory silos, requiring CCI to coordinate both internationally and domestically. Accordingly, it recommended that the CCI and MCA prioritise inter-regulatory harmony, collaborating with the data protection authority and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to resolve jurisdictional overlaps through Memoranda of Understanding (“MoUs”) and clear information-sharing protocols, while deepening international engagement.

Business takeaway : Stakeholders can expect parallel, cooperating regulators. Businesses in data-intensive or multi-regulated sectors should prepare for concurrent competition and sectoral scrutiny of the same conduct, and structure disclosures accordingly.

7. Proactive market monitoring and consumer welfare :

The Standing Committee urged CCI to move decisively from a reactive "post-mortem" model to proactive market monitoring: It stressed that in digital markets, consumer harm extends well beyond price to reduced service quality, diminished privacy and entry barriers built on data accumulation. Market studies were seen as the evidentiary backbone of ex ante reform. It recommended that CCI expand sector-specific studies into emerging areas where new business models are disrupting traditional competition dynamics to directly inform policy intervention. CCI should also holistically integrate consumer welfare into its enforcement, focusing on non-price parameters such as data privacy and quality of service into enforcement, while collaborating with the data protection authority on the interconnected effects of data usage.

Business takeaway : AI and algorithmic conduct are now active enforcement priorities, not speculative ones, with the CCI’s market study on AI feeding directly into an evidence-based design of DCB. Thus, technology and platform companies should treat self-preferencing, algorithmic pricing and data-driven quality effects as live compliance risks and monitor forthcoming sector studies for early signals of enforcement focus.  

8. Enforcement effectiveness and the litigation-attrition problem :

As of 30 April 2025, CCI had imposed total penalties of INR 20,350.46 crore, out of which INR 18,512.28 crore had been stayed or dismissed on appeal. Only INR 1,838.19 crore remained realisable, of which 99.2% was recovered.

The takeaway is clear : recovery is not the problem; appellate sustainability is. The CCI and MCA have therefore been directed to strengthen litigation strategy and routinely assess whether the 25% penalty pre-deposit requirement introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 (“Amendment”) for appeals is working as intended.

Another concern sounded was that the pre-deposit requirement may act as a barrier to access justice for MSMEs. Accordingly, the Standing Committee recommended an independent impact study and tiered thresholds, including a lower 10% threshold for micro enterprises. It also called for dedicated National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT") competition benches and adjudication of stayed penalties within fixed statutory timelines.

Business takeaway : The stay rate remains the single biggest weakness in CCI's enforcement. If the recommendations are adopted, companies can expect stronger, more robust CCI orders and faster appellate scrutiny.

Rajya Sabha Report : Enforcement analysis and procedural discipline

BACKGROUND

The Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”) underwent its most consequential procedural overhaul since inception through the Amendment which inter alia, introduced Sections 48A, 48B and 48C i.e., the statutory basis for settlement and commitment mechanisms in India. The Amendment also modified existing penalty provisions under Sections 27 and 48 of the Competition Act, introducing contentious additions such as potentially subjecting the global turnover of an enterprise to penalty by the CCI.

Four subordinate instruments operationalised this shift: the CCI (Commitment) Regulations, 2024; the CCI (Settlement) Regulations, 2024; the CCI (Determination of Turnover or Income) Regulations, 2024; and the CCI (Determination of Monetary Penalty) Guidelines, 2024.

The Rajya Sabha Report has examined these instruments.

Key recommendations and what they mean for stakeholders

1. Active periodic review of settlement and commitment framework:

CCI agreed to periodically review the settlement and commitment framework. It has already operationalised amendments to the CCI (Commitment) Regulations, 2024, including:

The time period within which a commitment application may be submitted to the CCI has been extended from 45 days to 60 days from the date of receipt of the CCI’s prima facie order initiating an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.

The overall time period for completion of entire commitment proceedings has been extended from 130 days to 180 days from the date on which a commitment application is filed. A clock stop mechanism has also been introduced such that the time taken by an applicant or any other party to furnish information in response to a request for information by the CCI shall be excluded.

Procedure for clearing defects has been clarified wherein defects shall be notified to the applicant and it shall be given 10 days to cure the same to ensure a valid filing of the commitment application.

Notably, the clock stop mechanism and clarification on defects are akin to the procedure adopted in merger filings and therefore create consistency across different regulations. The Committee has also directed the CCI to benchmark future reviews systematically against global practice, rather than conducting them in isolation.

1. Pro-active exercise of suo motu enforcement actions:

CCI told the Committee that it had reduced suo motu enforcement because of the perceived tension between initiating and adjudicating a case. The Committee accepted that public awareness has improved, but urged CCI to strengthen advocacy and continue using suo motu powers where warranted, especially for MSMEs, start-ups and the general public.

Business takeaway : Competition compliance should not be treated as complaint-driven only. CCI may combine greater advocacy with selective suo motu action in sectors affecting smaller businesses.

2. Protection for MSMEs and smaller players to foster free competition and innovation in the marketplace.

The Committee observed that “monopolies affect the least advantaged the most” and directed CCI to enforce competition law with greater vigour to benefit MSMEs, start-ups and smaller enterprises. It recommended that CCI must provide adequate protection to smaller players to ensure that they are not further disadvantaged by unfair or anticompetitive conduct.

Business takeaway : Conduct that disadvantages MSMEs or start-ups may receive closer enforcement attention, particularly in emerging and platform-led sectors.

3. Repeat offenders and the "cost of doing business" problem

The Committee made a sharp observation that repeated antitrust contraventions risk being seen by large enterprises as a routine “cost of doing business”, which blunts deterrence. Accordingly, it has directed CCI to enforce the aggravating-factor provisions in the CCI (Determination of Monetary Penalty) Guidelines, 2024 rigorously against repeat violators to ensure deterrence for future offences.

Business takeaway : Enterprises with a prior adverse finding, whether resolved through settlement or otherwise, can reasonably expect penalty computations in subsequent matters to explicitly weigh that history against them.

4. Capacity building, inter-regulatory coordination and market studies

The Committee flagged the growing complexity of digital and technology-driven markets and asked CCI to expand structured training for its officers on emerging technologies and international best practices. It also recommended that CCI pursue formal cooperation mechanisms, including MoUs with sectoral regulators. CCI's practice of undertaking structured market studies was also endorsed as a tool for evidence-based enforcement and policy formulation, and CCI was urged to continue the same on a regular basis.

5. Penalty recovery and transparency in computation

The MCA’s data shows that CCI’s problem is not collection of penalties but sustaining them in appeal. As of 31 March 2026, the CCI had imposed penalties of INR 20,378.65 crore, of which nearly 90% had been stayed or quashed on appeal. By contrast, 98% of the realisable amount was recovered. The Committee has therefore urged the CCI to strengthen investigations, evidence-gathering and penalty assessment so that orders can better withstand judicial scrutiny.

Business takeaway : Firms can expect more detailed penalty reasoning, more robust inquiries and CCI orders that foster greater transparency.

Conclusion

The combined message is clear: Parliament expects competition enforcement in India to become faster, more evidence-led and more protective of smaller businesses. Ex ante digital regulation is now the central policy direction. MSME protection is the political throughline. Businesses should prepare for more proactive scrutiny, clearer penalty reasoning, closer attention to repeat offenders, and greater coordination between CCI and sectoral regulators.

Please feel free to reach out to our Team to discuss any of the Technology Law, Competition Law, International Trade and Policy Issues.