This article has been published by India Business Law Journal at Strengthening the appellate pillar of India’s competition framework | Law.asia.

India’s competition law regime has matured during the past decade. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has rigorously enforced its orders across sectors including pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, real estate and digital markets. Competition appellate forums have also played a key role in shaping precedent, improving predictability and strengthening institutional processes. In 2017, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) was dissolved and its functions were transferred to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Although intended to streamline adjudicatory structures, the change removed a specialised competition law appellate tribunal. This raised questions about the future institutional design of competition appeals.

The COMPAT, established in 2009 under the Competition Act, 2002, as a specialised forum for CCI appeals, helped shape early jurisprudence. It developed key concepts such as relevant turnover for penalties, as affirmed in Excel Crop, laid the groundwork for effects-based analysis in Schott Glass and reinforced natural justice. The tribunal developed a conceptual clarity that influenced the CCI’s evolution.

In addition to hearing competition appeals, the NCLAT deals with matters from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and limited Companies Act, 2013, and National Financial Reporting Authority cases. Despite the NCLAT’s important decisions, such as Google Android, Google Play, Jet Aircraft, its multifunctional structure can affect the optimal resolution of specialised cases.

This is particularly so in the scheduling and disposal of appeals under the act. Urgent matters with stricter statutory timelines under the IBC and appeals from the NCLT take precedence, delaying the adjudication of competition appeals.

The COMPAT usually disposed of appeals within 12 months because of its exclusive focus on competition law. The NCLAT, during the past three years, has taken an average of 18 months to decide appeals on their merits. Some cases have taken as long as 44 months and remittances to the CCI about 30 months. The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal disposes of judicial review cases in four months and full appeals in nine. This produces timely and predictable enforcement without compromising the depth of consideration.

Devising an effective competition law appellate mechanism is not a new consideration. The Competition Law Review Committee’s 2019 report recognised that the NCLAT’s broad mandate strains its capacity to deal with the rising volume and complexity of competition appeals. It recommended establishing a specialist NCLAT bench for competition cases. The Standing Committee on Finance’s recent report also warned that prolonged litigation has stalled enforcement of significant fines, urging the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the CCI to collaborate for quicker adjudication. Section 418A of the Companies Act, 2013, allows the government to constitute benches for specific categories of cases. A competition bench, supported by listing protocols and expert assistance, will be a significant advance without disrupting the appellate structure.

A dedicated appeals framework aligns with the legislature’s intent to establish a specialised structure for a technically complex area of law. The COMPAT was recognition that competition matters demand specialised legal and economic expertise. Member eligibility requirements acknowledged competition law and policy experience as desirable. Current qualifications for NCLAT appointments do not mention having competition knowledge.

Ensuring that appeals are heard with speed and expertise is essential for enforcement credibility and ensuring legal certainty for businesses. The CCI has revised recruitment rules, conducted stakeholder consultations and created a Digital Markets and Data Unit to improve analytical expertise. Increasing technical issues, such as algorithmic pricing and platform power, demand a strong and responsive appellate framework delivering timely and credible outcomes.

Effective enforcement depends not only on carrying out CCI orders, but also on the appellate review’s efficiency. The finance minister also notes delayed regulatory clearances “disrupt commercial timelines”. The CCI chairperson emphasises “evidence-based, proportionate and anchored in rigorous economic analysis” for digital market enforcement. This high standard will only be achieved if appellate review is effective and efficient.