The matter had previously drawn sharp observations from the bench over the Union of India’s failure to file its response.
The Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia deferred the high-stakes matter between Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to May 11, 2026, while continuing the interim protection granted earlier.
The adjournment comes amid a broader constitutional challenge mounted by Madison against the scope of investigative and regulatory powers exercised by the CCI and its Director General (DG) under the Competition Act, 2002, as well as provisions of the recently notified CCI (General) Regulations, 2024.
Court’s Earlier Rebuke to Centre
The matter had previously drawn sharp observations from the bench over the Union of India’s failure to file its response. In earlier proceedings, the court had granted what it termed a “final opportunity” of two weeks to the Centre, warning that continued non-compliance could result in an adverse inference.
The bench had underscored that constitutional challenges to statutory provisions cannot remain in limbo due to executive delay, signalling its impatience with the lack of a timely response from the government.
BCI Impleaded; Wider Ramifications
In a move with potentially wider implications, the High Court has allowed Madison’s plea to implead the Bar Council of India (BCI) as a party to the proceedings.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the CCI, opposed the move, arguing that the BCI was neither a necessary nor proper party. However, Chief Justice Upadhyaya accepted Madison’s submission that the dispute directly engages questions around disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates — a domain statutorily vested in the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The court’s decision to implead the BCI signals that the case may evolve into a larger examination of the regulatory overlap between competition authorities and professional bodies.
Core Constitutional Challenge
At the heart of the dispute lies Section 26(1) of the Competition Act. Madison has challenged the constitutional validity of the provision, arguing that it does not authorise the DG to expand the scope of investigation beyond specifically identified parties once the CCI forms its prima facie opinion.
The CCI, in its response, has defended the breadth of its investigative mandate, contending that once a prima facie view is recorded under Section 26(1), the DG is empowered to investigate “anyone and everyone” connected with the subject matter.
Madison, however, maintains that such an interpretation permits impermissible sub-delegation of statutory power and violates principles of natural justice. The company has urged the court to either strike down Section 26(1) in its present form or read it down to confine investigations strictly to named entities.
Regulations Under Scanner
Beyond the parent statute, Madison has also challenged multiple provisions of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024:
- Regulations 46(3) and 46(4): Madison argues these provisions empower the CCI to hold advocates guilty of “professional misconduct” during investigations, a function it says lies exclusively with the Bar Council.
- Regulation 19(3): The company contends that restricting publication of prima facie orders to cases involving vertical restraints and abuse of dominance lacks statutory backing and curtails transparency.
- Regulation 47(c): This clause limits the presence of advocates during recording of statements on oath. Madison argues it infringes Section 30 of the Advocates Act and undermines the right to legal assistance.
The CCI has countered that its regulatory powers under the 2024 framework are consistent with its mandate and comparable, in limited respects, to disciplinary mechanisms exercised by professional bodies.
During the hearing, the CCI gave an undertaking that it would not summon Madison officials for recording of statements until the next date of hearing. The court recorded this assurance while directing both the Union of India and the CCI to complete their pleadings within the stipulated timeline.
Madison is represented by senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal, along with Anu Monga and Rahul Goel of AnantLaw.
With interim protection continuing and the BCI now formally on record, the case is poised to test the contours of investigative authority under India’s competition regime — and potentially redraw the boundaries between sectoral regulators and professional self-governing bodies.
Source: Storyboard18
