Court Confirms CCI's Two-Member Functionality Under Competition Act, 2002; Doctrine of Necessity Not Applicable.

The Court concluded that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is validly constituted with two members and can continue its adjudicatory functions under Section 15 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Court determined that the legislative intent of Section 15 is to prevent the invalidation of the CCI's proceedings due to vacancies or defects in its composition. Additionally, the Court found that the doctrine of necessity was not applicable, as the CCI is functional and capable of adjudicating without disqualified members. The Court directed the CCI to hear the applications under Section 42 of the Act by 26.04.2023, disposing of the petition with the observation that the CCI remains validly constituted and operational. The Court's observations were limited to the current case and did not impact future proceedings or the rights of the parties involved.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CCI is validly constituted with two members to continue its adjudicatory roles.
2. The effect of Section 15 of the Competition Act, 2002.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of necessity in the present case.

Summary:

Issue 1: Valid Constitution of CCI with Two Members
The Court examined whether the current composition of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) with only two members is valid for continuing its adjudicatory roles. The Court referred to Section 15 of the Competition Act, 2002, which states that no act or proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Commission. The Court concluded that the CCI is validly constituted even with two members and can continue its adjudicatory functions. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 15 is to ensure that the adjudicatory functions of the CCI are not impeded due to vacancies or defects in its constitution.

Issue 2: Effect of Section 15 of the Act
The Court analyzed Section 15 of the Act, which states that no act or proceeding of the Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of, the Commission. The Court interpreted this provision to mean that both adjudicatory and non-adjudicatory functions of the CCI are protected from being invalidated due to such vacancies or defects. The Court supported its interpretation by referring to previous judgments, including Cadd Systems and Services Private Limited vs. Competition Commission of India, which held that the orders passed by CCI cannot be questioned merely due to vacancies or defects in its constitution.

Issue 3: Applicability of Doctrine of Necessity
The Court considered whether the doctrine of necessity is applicable in the present case. The doctrine of necessity allows an adjudicator who is otherwise disqualified to adjudicate if there is no other person competent to do so, or if a quorum cannot be formed without him. The Court found that since the CCI is validly constituted with two members and there is no disqualification of these members, the doctrine of necessity does not need to be invoked. The Court noted that the CCI is functional and capable of adjudicating the applications under Section 42 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the CCI to take up the applications under Section 42 of the Act filed by the petitioner for hearing and consider them in accordance with the law on or before 26.04.2023. The petition was disposed of with the observation that the CCI is validly constituted and functional, and there is no need to invoke the doctrine of necessity. The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the present case and do not affect the merits of the case or the rights and contentions of the parties in future proceedings.

---