The Supreme Court has affirmed the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to impose remedies under section 27 in Competition Commission Of India vs Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation on 26 September 2025. The CCI has explicit statutory jurisdiction under Section 27 to enforce structural and behavioral remedies that protect consumer interests and promote fair competition, the Court confirmed. This authority strengthens the Commission’s capacity to combat anti-competitive acts by allowing the Competition Act, 2002 to go beyond the constraints of the previous MRTP framework, which was limited to issuing simple cease-and-desist orders.
Justices Manoj Misra and K.V. Vishwanathan held this power ensures that the Competition Act, 2002 achieves far more than the old MRTP regime, which was limited to issuing cease-and-desist orders. The Court emphasized the importance of time-bound disposal of cases, as highlighted in the SAIL and Excel Crop decisions, to prevent delays that could undermine the law’s objectives.
While the CCI has discretion to determine the appropriate remedy based on the facts of each case, such remedies must be proportionate and deterrent. The Court clarified that a show-cause notice requires the accused to explain the alleged misconduct, not the proposed penalty, in line with principles of natural justice. Appeals under Sections 53A and 53T allow appellate authorities to review the proportionality of penalties and modify them without remitting the matter. In the present case, Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation were found to have actively participated in anti-competitive conduct, with evidence confirming their knowledge and involvement. The monetary fines imposed were deemed appropriate for the harm done, and a two-year behavioral limitation was imposed to prevent repetition. Prior punishments and misconduct were reviewed, underscoring the importance of stringent enforcement. As a result, the Supreme Court reinstated the CCI’s order in full, mandating compliance within three months and dismissing accusations of breach of Article 19(1)(c).
The notice and hearing complied with the procedural requirements under the Act and the applicable Regulations, including the amendments of 2023 and 2024. This ensured that the penalty under Section 27 was imposed based on the facts, with full opportunity for the respondents to be heard.
The Competition Act does not mandate a second show-cause notice for proposed penalties; a single notice addressing the contravention suffices. The DG’s report, once furnished, along with a full hearing before the CCI, provides a fair opportunity to the parties. The CCI retains discretion to impose penalties proportionate to the contravention, including behavioral and structural remedies. Appellate review under Sections 53A and 53T ensures proportionality, allowing modification of penalties without violating natural justice.
