There are two types of enforcement of competition law: public and private enforcement. Public enforcement can be defined in simple words where the competition authority does not enforce that private rights and duties but it controls the macro structure and behavior of firms in an economy. In private enforcement parties can enforce their rights and get damages for the anti-competitive conduct of other parties.
The key deciding factor is the damages to private parties. Competition Act 2002 of India does not provide for damages to the parties. For a country like India which has started enforcing competition, how private enforcement can help.
Actually private enforcement can increase the deterrence against anti-competitive activities. the firms will take pro-active role in filing cases to CCI. The victims of anti-competitive activity will be compensated. In a new competition authority which is not adequately resourceful, private enforcement may help in maintaining competitive environment in country. The litigation cost can be recovered from the complainant in case of unsuccessful probe.
CCI is doing public enforcement but it is lacking in true spirit of public enforcement. In public enforcement, the authority is supposed to take suo-moto actions which CCI has done only in four cases out of more than hundred cases. Even in the cases brought to knowledge of commission by the private parties. Commission is rejecting the cases just because the informant does not provide sufficient information. In public enforcement the authority is supposed to collect evidence itself not rely on the informant(complainant).
The investigation wing Director General should be empowered further to conduct efficient investigation and collect evidence. Dawn raid should be used where-ever required.
The key deciding factor is the damages to private parties. Competition Act 2002 of India does not provide for damages to the parties. For a country like India which has started enforcing competition, how private enforcement can help.
Actually private enforcement can increase the deterrence against anti-competitive activities. the firms will take pro-active role in filing cases to CCI. The victims of anti-competitive activity will be compensated. In a new competition authority which is not adequately resourceful, private enforcement may help in maintaining competitive environment in country. The litigation cost can be recovered from the complainant in case of unsuccessful probe.
CCI is doing public enforcement but it is lacking in true spirit of public enforcement. In public enforcement, the authority is supposed to take suo-moto actions which CCI has done only in four cases out of more than hundred cases. Even in the cases brought to knowledge of commission by the private parties. Commission is rejecting the cases just because the informant does not provide sufficient information. In public enforcement the authority is supposed to collect evidence itself not rely on the informant(complainant).
The investigation wing Director General should be empowered further to conduct efficient investigation and collect evidence. Dawn raid should be used where-ever required.
No comments:
Post a Comment