Purely regulatory functions fall outside "enterprise" status, barring abuse of dominance scrutiny under competition law.

A statutory body performing purely regulatory functions under the Advocates Act, 1961 was treated as outside the definition of an "enterprise" under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002 because the impugned conduct was not economic or commercial in character. As that jurisdictional requirement was not satisfied, allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 could not be examined on merits, and no prima facie basis for interim relief was found. The stated principle is that sovereign or purely regulatory activity by a legal regulator does not attract enterprise status for competition law purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bar Council of India is an "enterprise" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002, and whether the allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 could be examined.

Analysis: The Bar Council of India performs statutory and regulatory functions under the Advocates Act, 1961, including promotion of legal education, prescription of standards, and rule-making on qualifications for admission and practice. The definition of "enterprise" under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002 covers activity that is economic and commercial in character, while sovereign or purely regulatory functions are outside its scope. On the facts pleaded, the impugned conduct arose from regulatory exercise of power and not from an economic or commercial activity. As the basic jurisdictional requirement was not met, the allegations under Section 4 could not be examined on merit and no prima facie case for interim relief was made out.

Conclusion: The Bar Council of India is not an enterprise for the purposes of the Competition Act, 2002 in relation to the impugned regulatory activity, and the challenge under Section 4 fails.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body discharging purely regulatory functions without economic or commercial activity does not fall within the definition of "enterprise" under Section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002, and therefore allegations of abuse of dominant position based on such functions are not maintainable.

---