The CCI observed that no documentary evidence, such as freight quotations, invoices, bid documents or correspondence, had been furnished to support claims of collusion or coordinated conduct. File.
| Photo Credit: Reuters
Fair trade regulator CCI has dismissed a complaint against Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, saying the allegations of anti-competitive conduct were generic, speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in an order passed on Thursday (July 16, 2026) said it has also dismissed similar allegations against over 4,500 firms across multiple sectors.
The complainant had alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act by enterprises operating in sectors, including telecom, logistics, government e-marketplace (GeM) procurement, energy, FMCG, and healthcare.
Sections 3 and 4 pertain to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, respectively.
The complainant alleged that these enterprises have engaged in coordinated conduct, including price alignment, exclusionary practices, and restricting free and fair competition in the areas of freight movement, and supply-chain logistics.
It sought a detailed investigation by the Director General (DG).
However, the competition watchdog said the complainant failed to identify the specific role of the opposite parties (OPs) or provide material to substantiate the allegations.
The CCI observed that no documentary evidence, such as freight quotations, invoices, bid documents or correspondence, had been furnished to support claims of collusion or coordinated conduct.
In case of telecom sector, the regulator said mere similarity in prepaid tariff plans, validity periods or recharge denominations in an oligopolistic market cannot by itself indicate an anti-competitive agreement.
On the allegations relating to GeM procurement, CCI said the complainant neither identified the enterprises allegedly involved in bid-rigging arrangement nor furnished any material indicating coordination, exchange of information, and bid rotation.
Holding that the allegations lacked foundational facts and could not justify a “roving and fishing inquiry”, the watchdog said no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is made out against the OPs.
Published – July 17, 2026 02:16 pm IST
