The Clash Of Jurisdiction Of CCI And TRAI

The Supreme Court identified a major issue:

(a) Whether the CCI can exercise its jurisdiction when TRAI is already vested with the same?

The Supreme Court opined as follows:

• The Supreme Court while passing its judgment opined that the questions regarding interconnection agreements and clauses under the same, quality of services, obligations of the service providers are governed under the TRAI Act. The Competition Act is insufficient to decide and deal with the issues arising out of the provisions of the TRAI Act. Therefore, CCI has no jurisdiction on the present matter.
• But, the Apex Court denied the contention that TRAI has the sole jurisdiction to deal with the issue excluding CCI. TRAI’s determination that the IDOs were in breach would constitute jurisdictional facts based on which the CCI could exercise its jurisdiction. As TRAI had not determined with finality that the IDOs were in breach of the interconnection agreements and that they had acted in concert, no jurisdictional fact was established to give the CCI jurisdiction.
• The court similarly held that TRAI, as the sect oral regulator, doesn’t have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on competition-related aspects in the industry. It ruled that if TRAI had determined that the IDOs had formed a cartel or colluded to block Jio’s entry, the CCI then would have jurisdiction to decide whether the IDOs’ actions had an appreciable adverse effect on competition. Thus, the jurisdiction of the CCI is not barred, but simply pushed to a later stage.

The judgment has to be appreciated as it has adopted a pragmatic approach and is a step towards certainty, which is indispensable for the growth of any economic law in the country. This decision was necessary to avoid having a concurrent jurisdiction. Going by this way, a balance will be maintained between TRAI and the CCI.