UPSC MainsECONOMICS-PAPER-II201910 Marks150 Words
हिंदी में पढ़ें
Q5.

Evaluate the Competition Act, 2002, relative to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

How to Approach

This question requires a comparative analysis of the Competition Act, 2002 and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969. The answer should highlight the shift in approach from a regulatory, licensing-based regime to a competition-based one. Focus on key differences in scope, objectives, enforcement mechanisms, and effectiveness. Structure the answer by first briefly outlining the MRTP Act, then detailing the Competition Act, and finally providing a comparative analysis.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The Indian economic landscape has undergone significant transformations since independence, necessitating evolving regulatory frameworks. Initially, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969, aimed to prevent concentration of economic power and protect consumers. However, with liberalization in 1991 and the subsequent need for a more dynamic and competitive market, the MRTP Act was deemed inadequate. Consequently, the Competition Act, 2002 was enacted, representing a paradigm shift towards promoting and sustaining competition in the Indian economy. This answer will evaluate the Competition Act, 2002, in relation to its predecessor, the MRTP Act, highlighting their key differences and assessing their effectiveness.

The MRTP Act, 1969: A Regulatory Approach

The MRTP Act, 1969, was primarily a preventative legislation. Its core objective was to control monopolies and restrictive trade practices. Key features included:

  • Licensing Regime: It required licenses for establishing new undertakings and expanding existing ones, effectively controlling entry and expansion.
  • Definition of ‘Monopolies’: Defined monopolies based on market share (above 25% in many cases).
  • Restrictive Trade Practices: Covered practices like price fixing, collusive bidding, and output restrictions.
  • MRTP Commission: Established to investigate and adjudicate cases under the Act.

However, the MRTP Act faced criticism for being bureaucratic, slow, and hindering economic growth. The licensing raj created inefficiencies and discouraged competition.

The Competition Act, 2002: A Competition-Based Approach

The Competition Act, 2002, adopted a more modern and proactive approach to competition regulation. Its key features are:

  • Focus on Anti-Competitive Agreements: Prohibits agreements that cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC).
  • Abuse of Dominance: Addresses situations where dominant firms engage in practices that harm competition.
  • Regulation of Combinations: Requires prior notification and approval for mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations that exceed certain thresholds.
  • Competition Commission of India (CCI): Established as the primary regulatory body with quasi-judicial powers.
  • Advocacy Role: CCI is mandated to promote competition awareness and advocate for policy changes.

The Act emphasizes economic analysis and focuses on the effect of practices on competition, rather than simply prohibiting certain structures or behaviors.

Comparative Analysis: MRTP Act vs. Competition Act

Feature MRTP Act, 1969 Competition Act, 2002
Approach Regulatory, Preventative Competition-based, Proactive
Focus Controlling monopolies & restrictive practices Promoting & sustaining competition
Licensing Extensive licensing regime No licensing requirement
Dominance Defined based on market share Defined based on market power & ability to act independently
Enforcement MRTP Commission (slow & bureaucratic) CCI (quasi-judicial, more efficient)
Mergers & Acquisitions Limited scrutiny Prior notification & approval required for significant combinations

The Competition Act, 2002, represents a significant improvement over the MRTP Act. It is more aligned with global best practices and better equipped to address the challenges of a liberalized and globalizing economy. The CCI’s focus on economic analysis and its advocacy role are crucial for fostering a competitive environment.

However, the CCI has faced challenges in terms of resource constraints and capacity building. Recent amendments to the Act (2023) aim to address these issues by strengthening the CCI’s enforcement powers and streamlining the merger review process.

Conclusion

The Competition Act, 2002, marked a decisive shift from the restrictive, licensing-based approach of the MRTP Act, 1969, to a more dynamic and competition-focused regulatory framework. While the MRTP Act aimed to control economic concentration, the Competition Act prioritizes fostering a competitive market environment. Despite facing implementation challenges, the Competition Act, particularly with recent amendments, provides a more effective mechanism for promoting competition and protecting consumer interests in the Indian economy. Continuous strengthening of the CCI and proactive advocacy are essential for realizing the full potential of the Act.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Dominant Position
A dominant position refers to a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in a relevant market in India, which enables it to operate independently of competitive forces or affect its competitors, consumers or the relevant market in its favour.

Key Statistics

As of March 2023, the CCI has imposed penalties totaling over ₹6,000 crore for anti-competitive conduct.

Source: Competition Commission of India Annual Report 2022-23

The number of combinations (mergers and acquisitions) notified to the CCI has increased significantly over the years, reflecting the growing M&A activity in the Indian economy. In 2022-23, the CCI received 388 notifications.

Source: Competition Commission of India Annual Report 2022-23

Examples

Google Search Bias Case

In 2022, the CCI imposed a penalty of ₹1,337.76 crore on Google for abusing its dominant position in the Android mobile device ecosystem, specifically regarding its practices related to pre-installation of its apps and restrictions imposed on device manufacturers.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the role of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)?

COMPAT was the appellate authority for orders passed by the CCI. However, it was abolished in 2017, and its jurisdiction was transferred to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Topics Covered

EconomyLawCompetition LawEconomic RegulationIndustrial Policy