Prima facie investigation under competition law may extend to connected entities where needed for a complete data-sharing inquiry.

Section 26(1) of the Competition Act permits the Commission to direct investigation on a prima facie administrative assessment at a preliminary stage, without a detailed independent recording against each party, because no adjudication on merits occurs at that point. On that basis, the challenge to the absence of a separate prima facie satisfaction failed. The court also accepted that clubbing the petitioner's information with an ongoing suo motu inquiry was within the Commission's power where the subject matter concerned user-data sharing within a wider ecosystem and the petitioner's role could be necessary for a complete investigation. The writ petition therefore lacked merit, and the clubbing direction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commission's direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 was invalid for want of an independently recorded prima facie satisfaction against the petitioner. (ii) Whether clubbing the petitioner's information with the ongoing suo motu investigation was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the Commission's direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 was invalid for want of an independently recorded prima facie satisfaction against the petitioner.

Analysis: The power under Section 26(1) is administrative in nature and operates at a preliminary stage. The Commission is required to form a prima facie opinion that the matter warrants investigation, but the stage does not involve adjudication of rights or a determination on merits. The impugned clubbing order was tested against the broader investigation already directed in the suo motu matter, where the Commission had recorded reasons showing why the data-sharing arrangements called for inquiry. In that context, the absence of an elaborate, separate discussion against the petitioner did not by itself render the direction unsustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of absence of an independent prima facie recording failed.

Issue (ii): Whether clubbing the petitioner's information with the ongoing suo motu investigation was justified.

Analysis: The subject matter of the investigation concerned sharing and use of user data within the wider Facebook ecosystem, including subsidiaries and related entities. The petitioner was found to be part of that ecosystem and its presence could be necessary for a complete inquiry into the data-sharing allegations. The expression "subject matter" in Section 26(1) was applied broadly to include allied aspects and third parties where required for effective investigation. Since the petitioner's role could fall within the scope of the investigation, separate clubbing was held to be within the Commission's authority and did not require fresh elaborate reasons.

Conclusion: The clubbing of the petitioner's information with the suo motu case was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to lack merit because the Commission's action at the Section 26(1) stage was only a preparatory investigative step and the petitioner's inclusion was treated as part of the wider subject-matter inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 26(1) stage, the Commission may direct investigation on a prima facie administrative assessment of the subject matter, and such inquiry may extend to allied aspects and connected entities where their examination is necessary for a complete investigation.

---