Competition in Telecom Sector: The Jurisdictional Tussle between Competition Commission of India and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

From enjoying natural monopolies to witnessing tough competition for services, the telecom sector in India has come a long way. It is now characterized by one of the fastest-growing sectors of deploying the latest technology and driving the economic growth in India. With the rapid intervention of innovation and competition redefining the sector dynamics, there are new emerging challenges that force the telecom and competition authorities to rethink their role and function and adopt a collaborative approach in deciding intersecting issues.

In 2017, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (RJIL), a new entrant in the telecommunications market approached Competition Commission of India (CCI) against the incumbents for forming a cartel to deny market entry. Prior to that, it approached the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) against the incumbents for denying adequate points of interconnection. CCI passed an order in favour of the informant, which was challenged in the Bombay High Court and later appeared in the Supreme Court of India. The case that breathed fresh air at every level of Court in the country is a landmark decision in settling the role of CCI with respect to telecom sectoral regulators, particularly in issues that simultaneously fall within the jurisdiction of both the bodies.

The objectives of both legislation, when reading together, intend to create an environment that may facilitate fair competition. In fulfilling the concerned objective, the jurisdiction of TRAI and the CCI overlap. Although the watchdogs (CCI and TRAI) share a common goal, they differ in their mandate and approach. The difference in the approach adopted by the CCI and TRAI towards a similar objective leads to cases of jurisdictional conflicts. The Researcher aims to analyze the decision of the Supreme Court of India in terms of its far-reaching effects on CCI while touching base on developments in the case at every level of proceedings through the lens of optimal regulation and competition.

Keywords: Telecommunications; Competition Commission; Telecom Service Providers; Jurisdiction; Penetrative Pricing; Sector Regulators.

Read Full paper on:- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570496

Comments

Post a Comment

If you have any doubt just let me know

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Coercion Section 15  defines Coercion as follows : Coercion is committing or threatening to commit an act that is prohibited by IPC, or any unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with an intention of causing any person into entering a contract. It is immaterial whether IPC is in operation at a place where such act took place. Illustrations A threatens B at gun point to sell his land to A. A while in an English ship on high seas enter into a contract with B by intimidating B that is unlawful in India. Later on A sues B of breach of contract in Calcutta. This is coercion. Chikham Amiraju vs Chikham Seshamma 1912  - Husband threatened to suicide unless wife gave property to his brother. This was held coercion. Askari Mirza vs Bibi Jai Kishori 1912  -  Threatening a criminal prosecution is not coercion per se. It could be coercion if the threat is to file false charges. Astley vs Reynolds 1731  - Plaintiff had pledged his place
Read more!

Residuary Powers (Art. 248)

Article 248: "Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or III. Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those lists" (It is to be noted that before independence, Governor-General, and not the federal legislature, which had such powers). Entry 97 of List I also lays down that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or III. Article 248 and Entry 97, List I, assign residuary powers of legislation exclusively to the Union Parliament. If no entry in any of the three lists covers a piece of legislation, it must be regarded as a matter not enumerated in any of the three lists and belonging exclusively to Parliament under Entry 97, List I. By virtue of Art. 248, Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in List II or List III, and for this purpose, and to avoid any
Read more!

आत्मनिर्भर भारत - Self Reliant India

Image
Atmanirbharta or self-reliance is the new catchphrase for the Indian economy. It sounds new but is actually the earliest initiative of economic policymakers after this country attained independence. It flowed from the motto of swadeshi and boycott of colonial foreign goods that was an integral part of the freedom movement. The general public thus had no problem in accepting the ideas of self- reliance and import substitution advocated by Jawaharlal Nehru and his advisors as a critical element of economic policy. It gelled well with the theme of independence, not just from the colonial masters, but from imperialistic powers everywhere. In practice, of course, import substitution became one more element of red tape under the licence raj system that evolved under Nehru and his successors. It is with a sense of trepidation that one views the latest clarion call to achieve the goal of atmanirbharta. The last stimulus package was even described as the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan. These
Read more!

amazon