Delhi High Court warns Centre in Madison–CCI regulatory showdown

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued sharp directions to the Union government in an ongoing constitutional challenge brought by Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. against the Competition Commission of India (CCI), signaling that continued inaction could trigger serious judicial consequences. 

A division bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Gedela noted that the Union of India had failed to file its reply despite earlier notice and adjournments. 

The bench granted a final period of two weeks for the government to comply and made clear that further delay would not be tolerated. 

As recorded in court, the bench stated that if the Union of India does not file its reply within two weeks, the court will draw an adverse inference. The matter will now return on February 26, 2026.

Madison has challenged the scope of powers exercised by the CCI and particularly those of its Director General (DG) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. 

The company has argued that the statutory framework does not permit the DG to expand investigations to unnamed or un-notified entities, and that any attempt to do so amounts to impermissible sub-delegation. 

Madison has urged the High Court to strike down or read down Section 26(1) to ensure that investigative processes remain confined to specifically identified parties at the prima facie stage.

The company has also taken aim at multiple provisions introduced through the recently notified CCI (General) Regulations, 2024. 

Madison contended that Regulations 46(3) and 46(4) effectively empower the CCI to hold advocates guilty of “professional misconduct” during DG examinations and Commission proceedings, thereby encroaching upon the disciplinary jurisdiction exclusively vested in the Bar Council of India (BCI) under the Advocates Act, 1961. According to the petition, the new regime risks undermining the right to counsel and procedural fairness during investigations.

In a development with broader institutional ramifications, the High Court accepted Madison’s plea to implead the Bar Council of India as a party to the proceedings. Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the CCI, opposed the impleadment, submitting that the BCI satisfied neither the test of a necessary nor a proper party. Madison, however, pressed that the disciplinary consequences embedded in the impugned regulations directly implicate advocates as a profession. The bench agreed that the issues raised warranted the BCI’s presence and ordered that it be impleaded.

Meanwhile, the CCI has robustly defended its stance before the court. In its response, the regulator has argued that once it forms a prima facie view under Section 26(1), the DG is empowered to investigate “anyone and everyone” connected with the allegations. It has also asserted that its powers under the 2024 Regulations, particularly Regulations 46(3) and 46(4) are analogous to those exercised by the Bar Council in matters of professional conduct and discipline, and that there is no unconstitutional overlap or conflict.

Madison has additionally questioned Regulation 19(3), which curtails publication of prima facie orders to proceedings involving vertical restraints or abuse of dominance. The company argued that the selective disclosure framework lacks statutory support and arbitrarily reduces transparency in competition law enforcement. Another provision under challenge is Regulation 47(c), which limits the presence of advocates during the recording of statements on oath, a restriction Madison claims violates Section 30 of the Advocates Act by inhibiting access to legal assistance.

During the hearing, the CCI assured the court that it would not summon Madison officials for depositions until the next date of hearing. The court recorded the undertaking while directing both the Union government and the CCI to complete their pleadings within the stipulated period.