India: How the CCI Shapes Merger Remedies for Market Integrity
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) governs merger control under the Competition Act 2002, with recent amendments and new regulations enhancing scrutiny and enforcement. While no mergers have been blocked, the CCI regularly requires remedies, including structural, behavioural, and hybrid measures, to address competition concerns. The CCI tailors remedies case-by-case, collaborates internationally, and enforces compliance through monitoring and penalties to maintain market competition.
India’s merger control regime, governed by the Competition Act 2002 and bolstered by amendments in 2023 and the 2024 Combination Regulations, requires prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for combinations exceeding set asset, turnover, or deal value thresholds. The CCI examines whether mergers may cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC). Since 2011, over 1,200 filings have been made, with remedies imposed in about 45 cases to secure approval, but no combinations have been prohibited.Remedies can be structural, behavioural, or hybrid, with a preference for structural solutions like divestitures in cases of significant market concentration. However, behavioural remedies—such as price caps, information firewalls, non-exclusivity undertakings, and operational independence commitments—are accepted where appropriate. The CCI engages in detailed dialogue with parties across all phases of review, allowing remedies to be proposed by both the CCI and the parties, including alongside responses to show cause notices. Compliance is strictly monitored with appointed independent agencies and legal enforcement provisions, including fines and potential voiding of combinations on non-compliance.The CCI evaluates transactions on market shares, barriers to entry, vertical and horizontal overlaps, and potential coordinated effects. Cases often involve complex multi-jurisdictional coordination but focus on India-specific competition issues. Examples of notable cases include Dow/DuPont, Bayer/Monsanto, Reliance/Disney, and Bharat Forge/AAMCPL, illustrating tailored remedies and international cooperation. The regime reflects a flexible, business-friendly approach, emphasizing remedial options over blocking deals and encouraging parties to engage in upfront planning to address competition concerns expediently.
