The Competition Commission of India has delivered a landmark clarification on the coexistence of competition law and sectoral regulation, holding that the Commission retains jurisdiction to investigate alleged abuse of dominance even when a sectoral regulator like the DGCA is active. This decision reinforces the principle that competition law serves a distinct public interest - preserving market structure and competitive dynamics - separate from operational or safety-based regulatory oversight.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Informant, Kartikeya Rawal, alleged that InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo), India’s largest airline by market share, engaged in abusive conduct by deliberately cancelling hundreds of flights in early December 2025, thereby creating artificial scarcity. In the aftermath, IndiGo and other airlines sharply increased fares, forcing stranded passengers - including the Informant - to pay up to INR 17,000 for return tickets that normally cost under INR 8,000. The Informant contended this conduct constituted abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Procedural History
- December 2025: Informant files complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act.
- 18.12.2025: CCI issues notice to IndiGo, directing it to submit detailed market data, including fleet size, route-wise capacity, fare trends, and slot availability.
- 10.01.2026: IndiGo files reply challenging CCI’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 (BVA) and Aircraft Rules, 1937 grant exclusive regulatory authority to the DGCA.
- 13.01.2026: DGCA responds, clarifying it lacks economic regulatory powers and does not regulate airfares or assess anti-competitive conduct.
- 21.01.2026: CCI considers submissions and issues order under Section 26(1).
Relief Sought
The Informant seeks investigation and penal action against IndiGo for abuse of dominance, including imposition of penalties under Section 27 of the Competition Act, and directions to cease the alleged anti-competitive conduct.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Competition Commission of India retains jurisdiction to investigate allegations of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, when the civil aviation sector is governed by a specialised regulatory regime under the Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and Aircraft Rules, 1937.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The Informant argued that IndiGo’s conduct - systematic flight cancellations followed by price hikes - constituted a classic abuse of dominance by leveraging market power to exploit consumers. The conduct had an appreciable adverse effect on competition by restricting consumer choice and distorting pricing dynamics. The Informant relied on Bharti Airtel Limited v. CCI to assert that sectoral regulation does not oust CCI’s jurisdiction where anti-competitive effects arise.
For the Respondent/State
IndiGo contended that the BVA and Aircraft Rules constitute a comprehensive, self-contained regulatory framework governing airfares, operational disruptions, and market conduct. It argued that Rule 135(4) of the Aircraft Rules empowers DGCA to address excessive or predatory pricing, thereby implying an exclusion of CCI’s jurisdiction. IndiGo further cited Monsanto Holdings v. CCI to argue that concurrent jurisdiction would lead to regulatory conflict and legal uncertainty.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a rigorous analysis of the relationship between sectoral regulation and competition law. It began by revisiting the Supreme Court’s holding in Bharti Airtel Limited v. CCI, which explicitly rejected the notion that specialised statutes impliedly repeal or oust the Competition Act. The Court observed:
"Even if TRAI also returns a finding that a particular activity was anti-competitive, its powers would be limited to the action that can be taken under the TRAI Act alone. It is only CCI which is empowered to deal with the same anti-competitive act from the lens of the Competition Act."
The Commission distinguished Rule 135(4) of the Aircraft Rules, noting that while it permits DGCA to issue directions on "excessive" or "predatory" tariffs, this power is limited to tariff transparency and compliance, not market structure analysis. The DGCA lacks the statutory mandate to define relevant markets, assess dominance, or evaluate appreciable adverse effects on competition - core functions under Section 19(4) of the Competition Act.
The Commission further noted that IndiGo’s market share consistently exceeded 60% in ASKM and passenger volume, with exclusive operations on over 330 domestic routes. This structural dominance, coupled with the timing and scale of flight cancellations, created a situation where consumers had no viable alternatives. The conduct was not merely a service failure but a strategic withholding of supply to manipulate pricing - a hallmark of abuse under Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(b)(i).
The Commission rejected IndiGo’s argument that consumer grievances must be addressed solely under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, emphasizing that competition law protects the competitive process itself, not merely individual consumers.
The Verdict
The Commission ruled in favor of the Informant. It held that the existence of sectoral regulation does not oust the jurisdiction of the CCI under the Competition Act. A prima facie case of abuse of dominance under Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(b)(i) was established, and the Commission directed the Director General to initiate a full investigation within 90 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sectoral Regulation Does Not Imply Exclusion of Competition Law
- Practitioners must now argue that parallel jurisdiction is permissible where sectoral laws address operational compliance but not market structure.
- Regulatory bodies like DGCA, TRAI, or SEBI cannot be assumed to have competition law expertise; CCI retains independent authority to assess anti-competitive effects.
- Evidence of market concentration, exclusive control over routes, and pricing manipulation remains actionable under the Competition Act regardless of sectoral oversight.
Dominance Must Be Assessed Through Structural Indicators
- Market share exceeding 50% on key routes, combined with exclusive operations, constitutes strong prima facie evidence of dominance.
- Fleet size, profitability, and network reach are now established as relevant factors under Section 19(4) for dominance assessment in network industries.
- Practitioners should collect and submit route-wise passenger data and ASKM metrics in all aviation-related competition complaints.
Artificial Scarcity as Abuse of Dominance
- Deliberate cancellation of flights to create supply constraints and trigger price hikes qualifies as "restricting the provision of services" under Section 4(2)(b)(i).
- This expands the scope of abuse beyond traditional predatory pricing or refusal to deal to include strategic capacity withholding.
- Future cases in energy, telecom, or logistics may cite this precedent to challenge similar supply manipulation tactics by dominant firms.