The Supreme Court on Friday December 13, made it clear to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that it would “not get special treatment” regarding its plea to transfer 24 writ petitions challenging its antitrust probe against Amazon and Flipkart. The Court firmly declined the request to transfer these cases directly to the Supreme Court or the Delhi High Court, highlighting the need to follow procedural norms and ensure fairness in the judicial process.

The Court directed Attorney General for India (AGI) R. Venkatramani to consult with the CCI on the possibility of transferring all the petitions to a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, where some of these cases are already pending. Justice Oka underscored the significance of following due process, remarking, “Only because some litigant is to be given special treatment, bypass the rules, we can't place it directly before the division bench.” The Court’s stance reinforces the principle that procedural integrity must not be compromised for expediency.

During the hearing, AGI Venkatramani argued for the consolidation of these cases, citing the urgent need to expedite the CCI’s investigation, which has been delayed for over four years due to litigation in multiple High Courts. He proposed transferring the cases either to the Delhi High Court, where a division bench initially dealt with related issues, or allowing the single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court to conclude its hearings. The AGI suggested that any party aggrieved by the single-judge bench’s decision could subsequently approach the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP), enabling a final resolution of the matter.

Senior advocates representing Amazon and Flipkart, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, opposed the proposals, arguing that bypassing intra-court appeals would undermine procedural safeguards and adversely affect their clients’ rights. Singhvi accused the CCI of engaging in "forum shopping," a claim strongly denied by the AGI, who maintained that the plea was motivated by public interest and aimed at resolving the matter expeditiously. Justice Oka rejected the contention that procedural norms could be set aside merely because the case involved a public institution, stating, “We will be accepting a very dangerous argument that because in one High Court, as per rules, a matter is heard by a single judge, only because in another High Court it is heard by a division bench, it should come to that High Court.”

The CCI’s investigation, initiated in January 2020 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, stemmed from a complaint by the Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh, a traders’ association. The complaint alleged that Amazon and Flipkart favored select sellers by granting them preferential treatment, thereby disadvantaging other sellers. The Karnataka High Court, in June 2021, dismissed writ petitions filed by Amazon and Flipkart challenging the investigation. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar observed that halting the inquiry at a preliminary stage would be inappropriate. This decision was upheld by a division bench of the High Court and later by the Supreme Court in August 2021.

The CCI completed its investigation in August 2024, concluding that Amazon and Flipkart had violated competition laws by favoring certain sellers and collaborating with smartphone manufacturers to launch exclusive products. In response, Amazon and its associated sellers filed writ petitions in various High Courts, including Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Allahabad, and Telangana, contesting different aspects of the investigation and its findings. To prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments, the CCI approached the Supreme Court, seeking consolidation of these cases.

The AGI argued that the delays caused by scattered litigation across jurisdictions had broader implications for millions of consumers and the public interest at large. He urged the Supreme Court to prioritize the matter, as the Karnataka High Court is scheduled to hear related petitions filed by Amazon and its sellers on December 17, 2024. However, Justice Oka stressed the importance of following procedural rules, stating that no litigant should be allowed to bypass one step of the judicial process, regardless of the urgency or public interest involved.

The Supreme Court granted the AGI time to consult with the CCI and provide instructions on how to proceed. The matter has been listed for further hearing on Monday.

Case Title: Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited

Case No: TP (C) No. 3364-3387/2024 Diary No. 56571/2024

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal