The Supreme Court of India on January 27, 2026, dismissed a plea filed by broadcaster JioStar seeking to stall an investigation ordered by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) into alleged abuse of dominant position in the Kerala cable television market. A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta declined to interfere with the CCI’s order, noting that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and that all legal and factual issues could be examined after the inquiry was completed.
The case, JioStar v. Competition Commission of India, arose from a complaint by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited (ADNPL), a major multi-system operator in Kerala, accusing JioStar of engaging in anti-competitive conduct in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Background of the Dispute
Asianet Digital Network alleged that JioStar, which holds exclusive broadcasting rights to several major sporting events and operates popular television channels with significant viewership in Kerala, abused its dominant position in the regional cable television market. According to ADNPL, JioStar’s market power enabled it to influence pricing and distribution practices in a manner that distorted competition and restricted market access for other operators.
A central allegation was that JioStar offered excessive and discriminatory discounts—reportedly exceeding 50 per cent—to Kerala Communicators Cable Limited (KCCL), a rival multi-system operator. ADNPL contended that these discounts were extended through so-called “sham marketing agreements,” allegedly designed to bypass regulatory caps on cumulative discounts applicable in the broadcasting and cable distribution sector.
Such conduct, ADNPL argued, resulted in denial of market access to competing cable operators and amounted to unfair and discriminatory pricing, squarely attracting the prohibition under Section 4 of the Competition Act.
CCI’s Prima Facie Findings and Investigation Order
After examining the complaint and the material placed on record, the CCI, on February 28, 2022, formed a prima facie opinion that JioStar’s conduct warranted investigation. Exercising its powers under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, the CCI directed the Director General (DG) to conduct a detailed investigation into the alleged abuse of dominance.
At this stage, the CCI did not record any final findings against JioStar but merely initiated an inquiry to determine whether the allegations had merit. The Commission noted that exclusive content rights, coupled with pricing strategies and discount structures, could potentially raise competition concerns if they resulted in foreclosure of competitors or denial of market access.
Challenge Before the Kerala High Court
Aggrieved by the CCI’s investigation order, JioStar approached the Kerala High Court, arguing that the dispute was essentially regulatory in nature and fell within the exclusive domain of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). JioStar contended that issues relating to pricing, discounts, and interconnection agreements in the broadcasting and cable sector were governed by TRAI regulations, leaving no scope for parallel scrutiny by the competition watchdog.
In May 2025, a single judge of the High Court rejected JioStar’s challenge, holding that allegations of abuse of dominant position are matters of competition law and cannot be excluded merely because the sector is subject to regulatory oversight. The Court observed that the presence of a sectoral regulator does not oust the jurisdiction of the CCI, particularly when the complaint alleges anti-competitive conduct.
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court later upheld this view, reaffirming that the CCI was competent to examine claims of dominance abuse even in regulated sectors.
Supreme Court Proceedings
JioStar subsequently moved the Supreme Court, reiterating its argument that the conduct complained of was regulated by TRAI and questioning whether the CCI could investigate issues already governed by a specialised regulatory framework. It was submitted that allowing the CCI to proceed would result in regulatory overlap and uncertainty for industry participants.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Maninder Singh appeared for JioStar, while the CCI was represented by Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman.
The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded to interfere at this stage. The Bench emphasised that the CCI’s order merely directed a preliminary investigation and did not determine any rights or liabilities conclusively. The Court observed that JioStar would have adequate opportunity to raise all its objections, including jurisdictional issues, during and after the investigation.
Court’s Reasoning: No Interference at Preliminary Stage
The Bench underscored the settled principle that courts should be slow to interfere with investigative processes at an incipient stage, especially when the statutory authority is acting within the scope of its powers. Since the CCI had only ordered an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, the Supreme Court held that judicial intervention at this stage would be premature.
The Court also took note of the concurrent findings of the Kerala High Court, which had consistently upheld the CCI’s jurisdiction in the matter. In the absence of any manifest illegality or abuse of process, the Supreme Court found no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
Competition Law vs Sectoral Regulation
The JioStar case once again brings to the fore the long-standing debate on the interplay between competition law and sector-specific regulation. Indian courts have, in several decisions, clarified that the existence of a sectoral regulator does not automatically exclude the application of competition law.
While regulators like TRAI oversee technical, pricing, and policy aspects of the telecom and broadcasting sector, the CCI’s mandate is to address market-wide competition concerns such as abuse of dominance, cartelisation, and anti-competitive agreements. The Supreme Court’s refusal to halt the probe reinforces the view that these jurisdictions can coexist, with each authority operating within its statutory remit.
Implications of the Ruling
The dismissal of JioStar’s plea has significant implications for broadcasters and distribution platform operators:
- Reaffirmation of CCI’s role: The decision strengthens the CCI’s authority to investigate anti-competitive conduct even in highly regulated sectors.
- Limited judicial interference: Companies may find it difficult to stall competition law investigations at the threshold stage.
- Greater scrutiny of exclusive rights and discounts: Broadcasters holding exclusive content rights may face closer examination of pricing and discount practices that could potentially foreclose competition.
The ruling signals that allegations of abuse of dominance will be examined on merits through statutory processes rather than being curtailed through early judicial intervention.
Conclusion
By dismissing JioStar’s plea, the Supreme Court has reiterated a consistent judicial approach favouring completion of statutory investigations before courts step in. The order underscores that competition law concerns, particularly those involving abuse of dominant position, deserve thorough examination by the CCI, even when the sector is subject to regulatory oversight by bodies like TRAI.
As the Director General’s investigation proceeds, the findings are likely to have wider ramifications for the broadcasting and cable television industry, especially in relation to pricing strategies, exclusive content arrangements, and market access in regional markets like Kerala.
Also Read
