Parallel Jurisdiction Confirmed: Courts Allow CCI Probe In Jiostar Case Despite TRAI Framework

On 3 December 2025, the Kerala High Court, in JioStar India Private Limited, dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by JioStar Pvt. Ltd. (JioStar) and permitted the CCI to proceed with its investigation into alleged anti-competitive conduct in the broadcasting and cable distribution market. JioStar’s subsequent challenge before the Supreme Court was also dismissed, thereby affirming the CCI’s jurisdiction to continue the probe.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed before the CCI by Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. (Asianet), alleging that JioStar had abused its dominant position by granting indirect and preferential discounts to Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. (KCCL) through marketing arrangements, in violation of Regulation 7 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)’s Interconnection Regulations, 2017. According to Asianet, these practices resulted in discriminatory pricing and distorted competition among similarly placed cable distributors in Kerala. On this basis, the CCI found a prima facie case and directed the DG to investigate.

JioStar challenged the CCI’s investigation before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, arguing that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of TRAI and that the CCI lacked authority to examine pricing and discount-related issues governed by sectoral regulation. This challenge was dismissed in May 2025, following which JioStar filed an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision and affirmed the CCI’s jurisdiction. Relying on Section 60 of the Competition Act, the Court held that the Competition Act has overriding effect in the event of any inconsistency with other laws. It observed that while TRAI regulates technical, licensing and tariff-related aspects of the broadcasting and telecom sector, it does not examine issues of market dominance or competitive effects, which fall within the CCI’s mandate.

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. CCI, noting that it concerned enforcement of licensing and interconnection obligations where TRAI was already seized of the dispute. In contrast, the present case involved indirect discounts through marketing arrangements, which are generally outside TRAI’s regulatory scrutiny. The Court reiterated that the TRAI Act, 1997 and the Competition Act can operate in parallel, and where issues of abuse of dominance or anti-competitive conduct arise, the CCI’s jurisdiction remains intact.

Following the Division Bench judgment, JioStar challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the appeal at the threshold finding no grounds to interfere.

Business Takeaway: Compliance with sectoral rules does not eliminate competition law risk. Companies in regulated sectors must structure commercial arrangements to satisfy both regulatory and competition law standards.