- IntroducedLok SabhaMar 09, 2006Gray
- ReferredStanding CommitteeApr 17, 2006Gray
- ReportStanding CommitteeDec 12, 2006Gray
- PassedLok SabhaSep 06, 2007Gray
- PassedRajya SabhaSep 10, 2007Gray
Highlights of the Bill
- The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2006 seeks to amend the Competition Act, 2002 to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote competition.
- The Bill proposes to divide the powers of the competition authority between two bodies: (a) Competition Commission of India (CCI) and (b) Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT).
- The CCI may inquire into any agreement that is likely to have an adverse effect on competition in the country or any enterprise abusing its dominant position in the market.
- The CAT can adjudicate on certain decisions made by the CCI. They include the decision that an agreement is not causing adverse effect on competition or an enterprise is not abusing its dominant position and the decision on whether a combination is having an adverse effect on competition.
- A Selection Committee headed by the Chief Justice of India would suggest a panel of names to the central government for appointing members of the CCI and CAT.
Key Issues and Analysis
- Both the CCI and certain sectoral regulators are mandated to deal with anti-competitive practices. Such overlap could lead to turf issues between these bodies.
- Although one of the main functions of the CCI is to promote competition, it does not have the power to give its opinion on competition related issues to the central and state governments on its own accord.
- The CCI can grant reduced penalty to any member of a cartel who is willing to disclose vital information. However, the Bill does not lay down the extent of the reduction in penalty or what kind of information would be considered as vital.
- Enterprises can impose reasonable conditions to protect their intellectual property rights. However, the term "reasonable conditions" has not been defined.
- The employees of MRTPC are to be absorbed in the CCI or the CAT after two years. This differs from the Principal Act, which placed the onus of absorbing these employees on the central government.