Breaking News: CCI summons to Madison withdrawn until further hearings

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recorded that the DG’s summons for Madison Communications, scheduled on October 14, was withdrawn. The Court adjourned the matter, granting two weeks for further steps and scheduling the next hearing on November 17, 2025.

Madison Communications had earlier moved the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) ongoing investigation into alleged cartelisation among ad agencies and broadcasters. The advertising agency alleged that the antitrust watchdog violated due process during its raids and inquiry.

The antitrust probe was triggered by disclosures made under the CCI’s leniency programme, reportedly by Dentsu, and has since widened to include several major advertising networks. Investigators suspect that ad firms may have coordinated pricing through private WhatsApp groups, violating competition norms.

The petition, filed by Madison, challenges the legality of CCI’s search and seizure operations, claiming senior executives were interrogated late at night by armed officers and denied legal counsel before giving statements. Madison also alleged that the CCI failed to provide a clear record of documents seized during the raids, calling the process opaque and unlawful.

Further, the agency sought to nullify summons issued to its chairman Sam Balsara and executive director Vikram Sakhuja, arguing that the investigation itself was tainted by procedural lapses. The company requested the court to stay the probe until these issues are resolved.

In its petition, Madison raised several points of contention. It accused the CCI’s Director General (DG) of overstepping his authority by expanding the investigation to new entities without prior approval from the Commission. It also claimed that the DG conducted raids in an intimidating, enforcement-style manner, “acting like the Enforcement Directorate (ED)” rather than as a quasi-judicial authority.

It argued that the DG not only overstepped his authority but also expanded the investigation’s scope without obtaining formal approval from the Commission itself, violating procedural boundaries set under the Competition Act.

Madison further challenged the validity of Regulations 46 and 47 of the CCI’s General Regulations, which restrict the presence of lawyers during DG examinations, calling this a violation of the right to legal representation. The agency argued that officials failed to disclose the evidence or materials forming the basis of the raids and did not maintain a proper inventory of seized documents, making the process non-transparent.

The petition also pointed to reputational harm caused by what it described as selective and coercive enforcement, contending that it was among the victims, not perpetrators, of the alleged cartelisation.

While Madison is the first to seek a complete halt to the probe, other agencies, including Publicis, have sought limited relief, primarily access to case materials without contesting the investigation’s legality.