Breaking News: Madison’s CCI challenge deferred as Delhi HC awaits Division Bench hearing

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday issued key directions in Madison Communications’ writ petition against the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

During the proceedings, Justice Sachin Dutta noted that the Division Bench is already seized of the related constitutional challenge and is scheduled to hear the matter on January 8. In view of this, the judge directed that the present writ petition be listed after the Division Bench’s hearing.

The Court also granted Madison time to file its rejoinder and directed that all pleadings be completed in the meantime. The judge clarified that the parties are at liberty to mention the matter again once the Division Bench takes it up. The next hearing is scheduled for January 19, 2026.

Madison was represented by Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, assisted by advocates Anu Monga and Rahul Goel. During the hearing, the Court was informed that Madison had also filed a fresh writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Competition Act and corresponding CCI regulations.

The controversy originates from a CCI investigation into alleged cartelisation in the advertising sector. The trigger was a leniency application filed in early 2024 by one of the entities in the market, prompting the regulator to open a probe into suspected price coordination, market practices, and alleged bid-rigging among major advertising agencies.

Acting on this lead, the CCI’s Director General (DG) conducted search-and-seizure operations at the offices of several top agencies, including Madison. Electronic devices, documents, and internal communication records were seized as part of the investigation.

Madison soon approached the Delhi High Court alleging that senior officials, including Chairman Sam Balsara and Group CEO Vikram Sakhuja, were reportedly summoned or questioned without adequate access to legal representation. Madison also argued that the CCI did not disclose the material supporting its suspicions, thereby undermining the fairness of the process.

A core contention is that the DG exceeded his legal authority by adding Madison to the probe despite the company not being named in the original Section 26(1) order and by issuing summons and demands that Madison argues fall outside the DG’s statutory powers.

The agency has described these actions as a “fishing and roving inquiry”, likening the DG’s approach to a criminal investigation rather than a regulated, quasi-judicial process.

Notably, on December 6, the agency filed a second petition challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Competition Act, along with certain newly introduced CCI regulations. The court has listed that matter for its next hearing on January 8, 2026.