Leniency Programme Under Competition Regime In India
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55662/ALPPR.2018.317Keywords:
competition law, Cartels, policyAbstract
Cartels are considered to be the utmost violation of competition law in India under the Competition Act, 2002. Leniency programme under the present law is the most effective tool for cartelists seeking leniency, to dodge significant punishment. These programmes involve a commitment to a pattern of penalties designed to increase incentives in form of lesser penalties for cartelists to self-report to CCI.The article examines the rationale behind the leniency programme, its procedural aspects as an effective tool to combat cartelisation. An attempt has been made to assess the recent changes that have been made to the leniency programme in India, along with its constitutional validity as examined by courts. Most of the competition enforcement authorities around the world have adopted leniency program. In order to understand the policy drawbacks in the leniency protocols we have scrutinized other law enforcement measures adopted by European Union, Japan and USA. The benefits yielded by immunity programmes are many, and in order to increase the benefits we have listed a few conclusive suggestions.
External References to this Article
Loading reference data...
Readership Data
Refreshing Cached Analytics Data
The cached analytics data has become stale and journal.thelawbrigade.com is making a fresh request to fetch the latest data from Google Analytics. This may take 20-30 seconds depending on the server response time from Google Analytics. Please do not close the browser during this time. We appreciate your patience.
References
D.G.Goyder, Goyder’s EC Competition Law (5th Ed, Oxford University Press Ch 2) Pg 8
- Verizon Communications Inc. V. Law Offices Of Curtis V Trinkino, LLP 540 U.S. 398,
408 (2004).
- R S Kemani, A Framework For The Design And Implementation Of Competition Law And
Policy (Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publication) (1999).
- The Competition Act, 2002.No. 12 Of 2003.
- The Competition Commission Of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (No. 4 Of
2009).
The Competition Commission Of India (Lesser Penalty) Amendment Regulations, 2017
(No. 1 Of 2017).
- Competition Commission Of India, Mission 2020, 8th Advocacy Series, http://cci.gov.in.
- Massimo Motta, Competition Policy: Theory And Practice, (Cambridge University Press),
At P. 193 (2004).
- Monti, M, “The Fight Against Cartels” Summary Of The Talk By Mario Monti To EMAC,
(2002).
- Ulrich Blum, Nicole Steinat, Michael Veltins, 'On The Rationale Of Leniency Programs:
A Game theoretical Analysis' European Journal Of Law & Economics (2008).
- Nash, John F, Equilibrium Points In N-Person Games. Proceedings Of The National
Academy Of Sciences 36 (1): 48–49 (1950).
- Neumann, John And Oskar Morgenstern: Theory Of Games And Economic Behaviour,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1944).
- Kreps, David, Paul Milgrom, John Roberts, And Robert Wilson, Rational Cooperation In
The Finitely Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma, Journal Of Economic Theory 27: 245–252
(1982).
- The Use Of Leniency Programs As A Tool For The Enforcement Of Competition Law
Against Hard core Cartels In Developing Countries; UNCTAD, August 26, 2010.
- Alkem Laboratories Limited And Ors. Vs. Competition Commission Of India And Ors.
2016complr757(Compat) (2016).
- Re: Cartelization In Respect Of Tenders Floated By Indian Railways For Supply Of
Brushless DC Fans And Other Electrical Items, Suo Moto Case No. 03 Of 2014, Order
Dated 18 January 2017 (2017).
- Amit Sanduja, Report On Leniency Programme: A Key Tool To Detect Cartel, Research
Project Report, (CCI), New Delhi, (2007).
- Frequently Asked Questions About The Antitrust Division’s Leniency Program And Model
Leniency Letters Originally Published November 19, 2008 Update Published January 26,
2017, At Pg 6.
- Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. &Anr. V. Union Of India &Ors. 242 DLT 220 (DB) (2017).
Competition Commission Of India V. SAIL, 10 SCC 744 (2010).
- Premier Rubber Mills V. Union Of India, (163) DRJ 599 (2017).
- Natwar Singh V. Director Of Enforcement, 13 SCC 255(2010).
- Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT 1 SCR 941(1955).
- R. V. Secretary Of State For Home Deptt., 1995 QB 43.
- A.K. Kraipak V. Union Of India 2 SCC 262 (1969).
- Charan Lal Sahu V. U.O.I. 1 SCC 614 (667) (Para 13) (1990).
- In Re: Gray, 57 S.C .R .(C Anada) 150, Chemical Reference Case, 1943 S .C .R . (Canada),
Australian High Court, Dignan's Case, 29 C .L .R .329.
- Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association V. Union Of India, 4 SCC 187(1989).
- State Of T.N. V. P.Krishnamurthy & Ors., 4 SCC 517(2006).
- Christopher Hockett, Arthur Burke, Neal Potischman and Samantha Knox Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP, The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2015, Pg 11.
- Yassine Lefouili and Catherine Roux, Leniency Programs for Multimarket Firms: The
Effect of Amnesty Plus on Cartel Formation Pg. 3, (2008).
- EGL and Others v. Commission, T-251/12, EU: T: 114, paragraphs 148-169, (2016).
- Commission Notice, [2002] OJ C45/3 and [2006] OJ C298/17.
- O'Brien, 'Leadership of Leniency', in C. Beaton-Wells and C. Tran (eds), Anti Cartel
Enforcement in a Contemporary Age Leniency Religion 17, at 28 (2015).
- Article 10a of Commission Regulation No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004
- Commission Notice [2008] OJ C167/1.
- S. Broos, A. Gautier, J. Marcos Ramos and N. Petit, 'Analyse statistique des affaires
d'ententesdansl'UE (2004-2014)', 67 Revue économique 79 at 85 (2016).
- Naval Satarawala Chopra, Need For A Strong, Effective Leniency Programme, Business
Standard: Need For Robust Competition Law.
License Terms
Ownership and Licensing:
Authors of research papers submitted to any journal published by The Law Brigade Publishers retain the copyright of their work while granting the journal specific rights. Authors maintain ownership of the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Simultaneously, authors agree to license their research papers under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
License Permissions:
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, others are permitted to share and adapt the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the authors, and acknowledgment is made of the initial publication by The Law Brigade Publishers. This license encourages the broad dissemination and reuse of research papers while ensuring that the original work is properly credited.
Additional Distribution Arrangements:
Authors are free to enter into separate, non-exclusive contractual arrangements for distributing the published version of the work (e.g., posting it to institutional repositories or publishing it in books), provided that the original publication by The Law Brigade Publishers is acknowledged.
Online Posting:
Authors are encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both prior to submission and after publication. This practice can facilitate productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the work.
Responsibility and Liability:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted research papers do not infringe on the copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties. The Law Brigade Publishers disclaims any liability for any copyright infringement or violation of third-party rights within the submitted research papers.
Citation Metrics
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2026 by Simran Kathuria
The copyright and license terms mentioned on this page take precedence over any other license terms mentioned on the article full text PDF or any other material associated with the article.
How to Cite
Citations List
