Competition investigation may proceed despite pending constitutional challenges where the regulator's prima facie abuse-of-dominance view is adequately recorded.

Section 26(1) proceedings under the Competition Act are administrative and preparatory, so the Competition Commission need not defer an investigation merely because related constitutional challenges are pending on overlapping facts. The Commission may proceed where the privacy or validity challenge before another forum concerns a different legal plane and does not oust competition jurisdiction. On the merits, the Commission had recorded a sufficient prima facie view of abuse of dominant position by identifying dominance, network effects, lock-in, lack of meaningful substitutability, and potentially unfair, exclusionary and exploitative effects of the policy update. The impleadment request was rejected because the applicant was not a party to the original proceedings and had to pursue any separate challenge independently.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Competition Commission of India was required to defer its investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 because related proceedings were pending before constitutional courts; (ii) whether the Commission had formed a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position warranting investigation; (iii) whether the impleadment applicant was entitled to be added in the appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the Competition Commission of India was required to defer its investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 because related proceedings were pending before constitutional courts.

Analysis: The jurisdiction exercised by the Commission under Section 26(1) is administrative and preparatory, not adjudicatory. The pending constitutional challenges concerned privacy and validity of the policy, whereas the Commission was examining the policy through the lens of competition law. Mere overlap in factual background does not oust the Commission's authority, and parallel scrutiny by different fora acting within distinct statutory spheres does not, by itself, create a bar to investigation.

Conclusion: The Commission was not bound to await the outcome of the pending proceedings and could proceed with its investigation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commission had formed a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position warranting investigation.

Analysis: The Commission had identified WhatsApp as dominant in the relevant market and relied on network effects, lock-in, lack of meaningful substitutability, opacity of disclosures, and the shift from an opt-out regime to a take-it-or-leave-it policy. It concluded that the challenged policy update could amount to unfair, exclusionary, and exploitative conduct affecting quality and data protection, with possible leveraging into adjacent markets. The court held that the Commission had applied the correct threshold for a prima facie view and had recorded sufficient reasons for directing investigation.

Conclusion: A prima facie case existed and the direction for investigation was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the impleadment applicant was entitled to be added in the appeals.

Analysis: The applicant was not a party to the proceedings from which the appeals arose, and its challenge, if any, had to be pursued independently in accordance with law. The appeals were concerned with the validity of the Commission's direction and there was no basis to convert them into a forum for the applicant's separate grievance.

Conclusion: The impleadment application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court upheld the Commission's power to investigate the challenged policy under competition law and found no ground to interfere with the impugned order or the dismissal of the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A competition regulator may proceed under Section 26(1) on a prima facie view of abuse of dominance even where related proceedings on a different legal plane are pending elsewhere, and such preliminary administrative direction is not displaced by mere factual overlap.

---