Competition Law Enforcement In Regulated Markets: The Supreme Court's JioStar Ruling

On 27 January 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by JioStar Private Limited declining to interfere with an ongoing investigation by the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") into allegations of abuse of dominance in the Kerala cable television market. The Court's refusal to stay the investigation reinforces a long-standing judicial approach of restraint at the preliminary stage of competition inquiries particularly where the CCI has acted within its statutory mandate under the Competition Act, 2002 ("Act"). The dispute arose from a complaint alleging that JioStar, a broadcaster with access to high-value television channels and premium sporting content had engaged in discriminatory pricing and preferential arrangements in favour of a competing distributor thereby distorting competition in the downstream cable distribution market. While JioStar sought to characterise the dispute as one falling squarely within the domain of sectoral regulation by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ("TRAI"), the courts consistently declined to accept that regulatory oversight could by itself preclude competition law scrutiny.

Statutory Framework and CCI's Investigative Powers

The Act prohibits the abuse of a dominant position under Section 4 including through unfair or discriminatory pricing and denial of market access. At the threshold stage, Section 26(1) empowers the CCI to direct an investigation where it forms a prima facie view that the information before it discloses a possible contravention of the Act. The nature of this power has been clearly delineated by the Supreme Court. In Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.¹, the Court held that a direction under Section 26(1) is administrative and preliminary in nature, does not determine rights or liabilities, and therefore warrants minimal judicial interference. This principle has since become foundational to competition law enforcement in India and underpins the judiciary's consistent reluctance to halt investigations at their inception.

Allegations in the Kerala Cable Television Market

The complaint against JioStar was filed by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited which alleged that JioStar exercised dominance in the relevant market for broadcasting and distribution of television content in Kerala. According to the complainant, JioStar granted substantial discounts and commercial advantages to a rival multi-system operator through marketing arrangements that allegedly had no genuine justification. Such allegations if established fall squarely within the scope of Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Act which address discriminatory pricing and denial of market access. Indian competition jurisprudence has consistently recognised that exclusionary conduct in downstream markets particularly where it forecloses competitors or tilts the playing field may amount to abuse of dominance. The Supreme Court's decision in Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India² illustrates this approach emphasising that the assessment of abuse must focus on competitive effects rather than formal contractual structures.

Question of Jurisdiction

A central plank of JioStar's challenge was that the broadcasting and cable television sector is comprehensively regulated by TRAI including through price caps and discount ceilings, and that the CCI therefore lacked jurisdiction to investigate the alleged conduct. This argument was rejected at every judicial level.

The Kerala High Court held that the existence of a sectoral regulator does not oust the application of competition law particularly where the allegation concerns market distortion rather than mere regulatory non-compliance. This reasoning aligns with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence recognising that the Competition Act is a law of general application intended to operate across sectors unless expressly excluded by Parliament.

The Supreme Court's earlier decisions make clear that regulatory oversight and competition enforcement serve distinct though complementary functions. In Steel Authority of India Ltd., the Court rejected the notion of implied exclusion holding that competition law continues to apply even in regulated industries. This position was refined in Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.³ where the Court emphasised regulatory coordination while affirming that the CCI retains jurisdiction to examine anti-competitive conduct once sectoral issues have been addressed.

Judicial Restraint

When JioStar carried the matter to the Supreme Court, it sought to stay the CCI's investigation at the threshold. The Court declined to do so reiterating that interference at the investigation stage is justified only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality. This approach reflects a consistent judicial philosophy. In Bharti Airtel, the Supreme Court cautioned against premature intervention that could stifle competition enforcement noting that the investigative process must be allowed to run its course before courts are invited to examine substantive objections. Similarly, Steel Authority of India Ltd. underscores that challenges to a Section 26(1) order are ordinarily premature given its tentative and non-adjudicatory character. By refusing to interdict the investigation, the Supreme Court in the JioStar matter reaffirmed these principles and signalled continuity rather than doctrinal departure.

The JioStar decision sits comfortably within the broader framework governing competition law in regulated sectors. Indian courts have repeatedly acknowledged that sectoral regulation addresses technical and industry-specific concerns, while competition law focuses on market structure, competitive neutrality, and consumer welfare. The coexistence of these regimes does not imply conflict, but rather necessitates coordination. As clarified in Bharti Airtel, competition law scrutiny may sometimes follow sectoral determinations but it is not displaced by them. This is particularly relevant where allegations relate to discriminatory conduct or exclusionary strategies that extend beyond mere regulatory compliance. In this sense, the JioStar ruling reinforces the idea that regulatory approval or compliance does not confer immunity from competition law where conduct may distort market conditions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's refusal to halt the CCI's probe carries significant implications for enterprises operating in regulated markets. It underscores that jurisdictional challenges premised solely on the existence of a sectoral regulator are unlikely to succeed at the investigation stage. It also signals judicial support for allowing the CCI to examine allegations of abuse of dominance through its statutory processes. For businesses, the decision highlights the importance of ensuring that commercial arrangements even when framed within regulatory parameters do not result in exclusionary effects or discriminatory treatment capable of attracting competition scrutiny.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of JioStar's challenge consolidates well-settled principles of Indian competition law. Orders directing investigation under Section 26(1) warrant judicial restraint sectoral regulation does not exclude the application of competition law and allegations of abuse of dominance must be tested through the CCI's investigative and adjudicatory framework. Rather than breaking new ground, the decision reinforces continuity in enforcement philosophy and provides renewed clarity on the limits of judicial intervention at the preliminary stage. For regulated industries, the message is clear. Competition law operates alongside sectoral regulation and neither can be treated as a substitute for the other.

Footnotes

1. (2010) 10 SCC 744

2. (2017) 8 SCC 47

3. (2019) 2 SCC 521

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.