Similar Telecom Tariffs Not Collusion; CCI Closes Case Against Reliance Jio, 4,500 Others

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed an information filed against Reliance Jio Infocom Limited and more than 4,500 other entities across multiple sectors.

It held that the information failed to produce evidence linking any of the opposite parties to the alleged anti-competitive conduct and, therefore, did not disclose a prima facie case under the Competition Act.

The information, filed by Goutam Mohanta, alleged anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. Besides telecom, it covered sectors including logistics, Government e-Marketplace (GeM) procurement, energy and infrastructure, healthcare, steel, cement, and real estate.

A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag passed the order.

In the telecom sector, the Informant alleged that operators followed similar tariff structures, recharge validity periods and uniform data policy features. According to the Informant, these similarities indicated structural alignment in a highly concentrated market.

The Informant also referred to recurring consumer complaints relating to call drops, fluctuations in internet speed, instability of data services and service outages.

In the logistics sector, the Informant alleged parallel pricing, route allocation and exclusionary practices. He also alleged bid-rigging and barriers to entry in GeM procurement, along with similar competition concerns in several other sectors. The Informant sought a direction for an investigation by the Director General.

Examining the allegations, the Commission observed that the information failed to identify the specific role played by any of the opposite parties.

The Commission said there was no substantiation identifying which opposite party was involved in the alleged price coordination, the corridors where such conduct allegedly occurred, the period during which it took place or the manner in which any agreement or understanding was implemented.

"There is no substantiation as to which OP was involved in the purported price coordination, the corridors in respect of which such conduct occurred, the period during which the alleged practices were undertaken, or the manner in which the alleged agreement or understanding was implemented.", the commission noted.

With respect to the telecom sector, the Commission noted that the allegations were based solely on a comparison of publicly available recharge plans. It found that the information disclosed no evidence of coordinated action or a meeting of minds among telecom operators.

The Commission observed that the mere existence of parallel or similar pricing in an oligopolistic market could not, by itself, be prima facie indicative of prohibited conduct under Section 3 of the Competition Act.

"The Commission is of the view that mere existence of parallel or similar pricing in an oligopolistic market cannot by itself be prima facie indicative of prohibited conduct under Section 3 of the Act.", the competition watchdog observed.

Turning to the allegations relating to the logistics sector, GeM procurement and the other sectors, the Commission found that the Informant had failed to identify the enterprises allegedly involved in anti-competitive arrangements or produce cogent material to substantiate the allegations.

The Commission further observed that the information contained broad and generic allegations across sectors. No specific role had been attributed to any identified opposite party. Nor had the informant specified the nature, manner, period or circumstances of the alleged anti-competitive conduct.

Subsequently, the Commission observed: "The Commission is of view that in the absence of any cogent material, documentary evidence, empirical data or other contemporaneous material that could prima facie substantiate the allegations raised, the jurisdiction of the Commission cannot be invoked as it would effectively require the Commission to embark upon a roving and fishing inquiry in the absence of foundational facts indicating a prima facie contravention of the Act."

Holding that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act was made out against Reliance Jio and the other opposite parties, the Commission closed the complaint.