Development of the Indian Telecommunication Sector throughout Last Decade

A Tale about Merits and Demerits of Telecom Law and Competition Law in India

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26512/lstr.v16i2.50395

Keywords:

Telecom. Regulation. Anti-Competitive Agreement. Competition Law. Competition Act. Collective Dominance.

Abstract

[Purpose] During the post-liberalization era, the Indian legal system introduced multiple laws with the objective of safeguarding the interests of Indian consumers and fostering equitable competition within the telecommunications sector. Notably, the Indian legal system has demonstrated a significant commitment to the resolution of telecommunications-related disputes, exemplified by the enactment of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act in 1997 and the Competition Act in 2002. Both legislative measures were designed to advance the cause of fair competition in the telecommunications industry. The primary purpose of this article is to conduct an examination of whether the objectives set forth by these two Acts have been effectively realized over the past decade (2012-2021). Additionally, this article will undertake a comparative analysis of these Acts in relation to legal frameworks in other countries beyond India.

[Methodology] The foundational methodology employed in this research centers on the analysis of cases adjudicated by both the Telecom Regulatory Authority and the Competition Regulatory Authority in India, particularly in instances involving disputes within the telecommunications sector. This article offers a concise data analysis concerning the evolution of the Indian telecommunications market over the past decade (2012-2021). The primary aim is to undertake a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of the Acts in place for the preservation of fair competition within this industry.

[Findings] Based on the legal analysis, this article argues that there is an unresolved territorial dispute between the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Under section 3 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, the Indian government established the regulatory agency to oversees the telecommunications industry in India and the Competition Act, 2002 establishes the Competition Commission of India being primary national competition regulator in India. It is an official department of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs tasked with upholding the Competition. The findings also suggest that the Government of India should overhaul its institutional framework in order to insert the “collective dominance” concept in the Competition Act. This concept/amendment was about to be passed in the India Congress by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in 2014. However, it failed due to dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of India’s bicameral Parliament. Consequently, numerous disputes and concerns remained unresolved. Lastly, Reliance JIO Infocomm Limited is a Public Company that was established on February 15, 2007, is categorized as a Non-Government Company, and is registered with the Registrar of Companies in Mumbai, India. It applied a “zero pricing” strategy which created market distortion which reduced most of the rivals from the telecom market. This kind of strategy was previously ordered void in the NSE[1] case but the same was allowed to the JIO on the premises that it was a new entrant and not dominant. The Competition laws mostly address “predatory pricing”, however, in the matter of “penetrative pricing” they have remained silent. The “penetrative pricing” is allowed for the promotion, but the benchmark of promotion has not yet been regulated.

 

[1] NSE National Stock Exchange

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Soumadip Kundu, JIS University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Assistant Professor of Law. He teaches Competition Law, Constitutional Law and Criminal Law in JIS University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. He also acts as a consultant in criminal law and constitutional law. E-mail: soumakundu.1988@gmail.com.

Amit Ghosh, Department of Law, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University, Nadia, West Bengal, India

Assistant Professor of Law. He teaches Migratory Laws and Constitutional Law. He has been awarded Ph.D. due to his work on human trafficking in India. He is the Head of The Department of Law, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University, Nadia, West Bengal, India. E-mail: amit.ghosh@makautwb.ac.in.

References

Articles:

Bernaerts Inge & Kramer Stephen (2005,p.no 47-52) Director-General Competition, unit C-1, “First collective dominance cases under the European consultation mechanism”, Competition Policy Newsletter, Antitrust, Number 2-Summer 2005.

M Brenncke,(2010,p.no 1793-1814) “Case note on European Court of Justice, C-58/08, Vodafone Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform” 47(6) Common Market Law Review.

Case Laws:

Akzo Nobel NV Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v European Commission, Case C-516/15 P [2016].

Bharati Airtel v. Reliance Industries Ltd and others, CCI Case No. 03/2017.

CA Ranjan Sardana vs M/s Cellular Operator Association of India, M/s Bharti Airtel Limited. and M/s Idea Cellular Limited CCI Case no 81/2016, Mr. Kantilal Ambala Puj vs Cellular Operation Association of India, Vodafone India Limited, Bharti Airtel Limited, Idea Cellular Limited, Telenor (India) Communication Private Limited, Videocon Telecommunication Limited, Aircel Limited and Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited CCI Case no 83/2016, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. against Cellular Operators Association of India, Vodafone India Limited, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Vodafone Group PIC, Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Hexacom Limited and Idea Cellular Limited CCI Case no 95/2016.

Cellular Operator Association of India v. Competition Commission of India 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8524

Competition Commission of India v.Bharti Airtel, (2019) 2 SCC 521.

Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744 SCC 744.

Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities, ECR I-1365 [35]–[45] [2000].

Deutsche Telekom AG v. European Commission , (2010) C-280/08.

GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v. Commission of the European Communities, Case T-168/01 [2006].

MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. , CCI Case No. 13/2009.

Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Meru Cab) v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd& Others. CCI Case No. 96/2015.

Österreichische Postsparkasse AG and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v. Commission of the European Communities, Joined cases T-231/01 and T-214/01 [2006].

Shri Sonam Sharma v. Apple, Vodafone, Airtel and Others 2013 CompLR 0346 (CCI).

The Commissioner of Competition v. Visa Canada Corporation and MasterCard International Incorporated et al. CT-2010-010 (Visa, MasterCard).

Vodafone India Limited and Ors v. The Competition Commission of India and Ors., MANU/MH/2284/2017.

Acts:

Competition Act, 2002

Constitution of India

European Community Treaty

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997

Reports:

Government of India, “Annual Report” (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 2012-13).

Government of India, “Report of Competition Law Review Committee” (Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 2019).

Government of India, “Annual Report” (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 2016-17) available at: https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/AnnualReportEng16032018.pdf

Government of India, “Highlights of Telecom Subscription Data” (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 30th Sep, 2021) available at: https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PR_No.50of2021_0.pdf (last visited on May 09, 2022).

Downloads

Published

2024-10-16

How to Cite

KUNDU, Soumadip; GHOSH, Amit. Development of the Indian Telecommunication Sector throughout Last Decade: A Tale about Merits and Demerits of Telecom Law and Competition Law in India. Law, State and Telecommunications Review, [S. l.], v. 16, n. 2, p. 1–30, 2024. DOI: 10.26512/lstr.v16i2.50395. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/RDET/article/view/50395. Acesso em: 30 dec. 2024.