Madison case adjourned as Division Bench hears connected matter

New Delhi: Delhi High Court Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav heard the ongoing case filed by Madison against the Competition Commission of India. During the hearing, Madison’s counsel informed the court that the connected matter has already been placed before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and submitted that the fate of the present matter depends on the findings to be rendered by the Division Bench, which would have a bearing on the outcome of the writ petition. 

Therefore, since the Division Bench is already seized of the issue, the present case is adjourned and will be listed accordingly.

Notably, The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the case on February 26, in which Madison Communications has challenged the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Union of India over the scope of CCI’s investigative powers in an ongoing antitrust probe linked to alleged collusion in the advertising ecosystem. 

Madison has questioned whether the CCI’s Director General can investigate parties beyond those named in the original prima facie order under the Competition Act and has also contested parts of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024, including provisions affecting advocates’ role during investigations and rules that could allow the CCI to treat lawyers’ conduct as “professional misconduct,” which Madison argued overlaps with the Bar Council of India’s jurisdiction.

The court has also warned the Centre for not filing its response within time and allowed the Bar Council of India to be added as a party due to the wider implications for advocates.

Overview

Madison Communications has launched a multi-layered legal challenge against the CCI, seeking to set aside both the Commission’s prima facie order and the 20-hour search-and-seizure operation conducted at its Mumbai office in March 2025.

Madison contended that the probe was triggered by a leniency application alleging a buyers’ cartel involving advertisers under the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), but enforcement action was disproportionately focused on advertising agencies.

The company has alleged that the Directorate General (DG) exceeded its mandate and undertook a “fishing and roving inquiry.” It also pointed out that no searches were carried out at ISA member premises, despite the alleged Model Agency Agreement (MAA) having originated from advertisers. In addition, Madison has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 46 and 47, along with the CCI’s new regulations.