Madison tells Delhi High Court CCI behaved like ED as it seeks to quash antitrust probe

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday heard Madison Communications’ petition challenging the Competition Commission of India’s investigation into alleged cartelisation in the advertising market. 

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta took up extensive arguments on the CCI’s search and seizure procedures, the scope of the Director General’s powers, and the presence of legal counsel during questioning.

Madison has asked the court to set aside the CCI’s prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act and to declare the March 2025 search and seizure illegal. 

The company said a 20-hour raid was carried out at its Mumbai office on March 18–19 and that senior executives were interrogated without meaningful access to lawyers. 

As per reports, Madison’s counsel said the regulator “behaved like the Enforcement Directorate,” and conducted a “fishing and roving inquiry.”

Arguing on process, Madison submitted that the statutory scheme requires the Commission to first form a clear prima facie view naming all entities before the DG begins a probe. It said the DG has no independent authority to widen the inquiry by adding new parties without prior approval of the Commission. Madison also complained that it has not been given access to seized material and has only seen the CCI’s order, making it impossible to verify what was taken.

On legal representation, the court heard submissions on Regulations 46 and 47 of the CCI (General) Regulations, which govern the presence of counsel during DG examinations. Madison pressed for parity with the Supreme Court’s interim arrangement on lawyer access. The CCI said there is no stay of the regulations and that the prevailing Division Bench ruling remains binding, adding that the regulations codify the apex court’s position.

Madison’s counsel sought a one-week deferment of a DG summons scheduled for October 14, saying there was no urgency and the legal questions deserved detailed consideration, stated reports.

The bench indicated it was inclined to defer the summons and asked both sides to place the relevant Supreme Court and High Court orders on record before the next hearing.

Madison traced the case back to a leniency application filed in February 2024 that alleged a buyers’ cartel among advertisers under the Indian Society of Advertisers.

According to news reports, it said the CCI’s prima facie order itself referred to the circulation of a Model Agency Agreement that restricted negotiations with agencies and hurt agency revenue models. 

Madison, a member of the Advertising Agencies Association of India, argued that agencies were the victims, not the perpetrators, yet the DG focused searches on agencies while no equivalent action was taken on ISA members. It is called an approach discriminatory and damaging to reputation.

The CCI has been probing alleged collusion in ad rates and practices across agencies and broadcasters. The High Court will continue hearing the matter after the parties file the cited orders. A decision on the deferment of the DG summons and the counsel access issue will be taken at the next listing.