The CCI’s first application of global turnover for fines sparks Apple’s high-stakes challenge

On 10 November 2025, the CCI reaffirmed penalties in Nagrik Chetna Manch v. Fortified Security Solutions & Ors[1]., a case involving bid-rigging cartel across 7 solid waste management tenders floated by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The parties admitted their involvement through voluntary disclosures under the CCI’s leniency program but sought to mitigate liability by claiming they acted as “cover bidders at a friend’s request” and that this was a “first-time offense.” The CCI dismissed these arguments, observing that cover bidding; where sham bids are submitted to create an illusion of competition; undermines the integrity of public procurement, and repeated participation across multiple tenders negates any plea for leniency. The CCI concluded that the arrangement was intended to secure tenders for cartel members and enable unlawful gains contravening Section 3(3) of the Competition Act.

The real significance of this case lies in the penalty computation. Historically, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Excel Crop Care (2017)[2], penalties were based on “relevant turnover” i.e. the revenue from the specific product or service involved in the violation, to ensure proportionality for multi-product firms. If relevant turnover was unavailable, the CCI relied on all-India turnover, capped at 10% of the average for the preceding three years. The Competition Amendment Act, 2023 and CCI Guidelines on Penalty Computation, 2024 (Penalty Guidelines 2024) altered this framework by authorizing penalties on global turnover, subject to the same 10% cap.

In Nagrik Chetna Manch case, the CCI operationalized this principle for the first time. It began with relevant turnover as required by the Guidelines but found that figure nil or too low to achieve deterrence because several participants were cover bidders or had no sales in the relevant line of business. Rather than defaulting to India turnover, the CCI moved directly to global turnover of the parties and applied the statutory maximum-10% of the average global turnover for the preceding three years. It clarified that where relevant turnover is indeterminable or inadequate, penalties may encompass all products and services sold worldwide. This marks a decisive shift in enforcement philosophy: negligible India revenue will no longer shield enterprises from meaningful sanctions. Although the companies involved were MSMEs, making numerical value of penalties modest, the precedent is significant. For large enterprises, exposure could be extremely high.

Taking note of such assertive interpretation by the CCI, on 27 November 2025, Apple challenged the constitutionality of the global turnover provision under Section 27(b) of the Competition Act, and the Penalty Guidelines, 2024. Apple contended that using global turnover to penalize conduct confined to one product in India is “manifestly arbitrary,” disproportionate, and extraterritorial in effect. To put things in perspective, if the statutory maximum is exercised by the CCI- that could result in a financial liability exposure of USD 38 billion for Apple. The High Court issued notice to the Centre and the CCI, and during preliminary hearings, the Bench questioned whether revenue from unrelated global business lines can reasonably be included when the alleged abuse concerns only the App Store in India. The CCI defended the regime as essential to deter large platforms with minimal India turnover. The matter is next listed for 16 December, 2025.

Business Takeaway: Global turnover-based penalties raise unprecedented compliance risks. For multinationals, the compliance calculus has changed dramatically. Robust competition law programs, periodic internal audits, and documented independence in procurement decisions are now critical-not only to prevent violations but also to secure meaningful mitigation under the Penalty Guidelines, 2024 framework. Proactive compliance is no longer optional; it is a strategic shield against penalties that could reach billions of dollars.

[1] CCI: Nagrik Chetna Manch vs. Fortified Security Solutions & Ors. Case No 50 of 2015 & Suo Moto Case No. 03 of 2016, order dated 10 November 2025

[2] Supreme Court: Excel Crop Care Ltd v Competition Commission of India & Ors (2017) 8 SCC 47.