Competition inquiry confidentiality prevails at the prima facie stage; access limits and related regulations were upheld.

At the prima facie stage of a Competition Act inquiry, a party under investigation has no absolute right to inspect confidential records or obtain certified copies, because the Commission's initial function is administrative and the statutory confidentiality regime under Sections 57 and the allied regulations can limit access while investigation is pending. The Delhi High Court therefore upheld the refusal of inspection and copies. It also held that Regulation 35, the proviso to Regulation 37(1) of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009, and Regulation 6 of the Lesser Penalty Regulations were intra vires, as they operated within the parent Act and no violation of constitutional guarantees or natural justice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a party under investigation by the Competition Commission of India is entitled to inspection of records and certified copies of confidential material at the stage of formation of a prima facie opinion and investigation; (ii) whether Regulation 35 and the proviso to Regulation 37(1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 and Regulation 6 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 are unconstitutional or ultra vires the Competition Act, 2002.

Issue (i): whether a party under investigation by the Competition Commission of India is entitled to inspection of records and certified copies of confidential material at the stage of formation of a prima facie opinion and investigation.

Analysis: The scheme of the Competition Act, 2002 distinguishes the preliminary stage under Section 26(1) from the adjudicatory stage that follows receipt of the Director General's report. At the prima facie stage, the Commission performs an administrative and preparatory function and is not required to issue notice or grant a hearing as a matter of right. The Act also contains an express confidentiality regime under Section 57, while Regulation 35 permits confidential treatment of documents and Regulation 37(1) makes inspection subject to that restriction. The entitlement to inspection is therefore not absolute, and the Commission may refuse access where the material is confidential and the investigation is pending.

Conclusion: The request for inspection and certified copies was validly refused and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether Regulation 35 and the proviso to Regulation 37(1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 and Regulation 6 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 are unconstitutional or ultra vires the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: Subordinate legislation is presumed valid and can be struck down only for lack of competence, inconsistency with the parent Act, violation of constitutional provisions, or manifest arbitrariness. The impugned regulations operate within the framework of Sections 36, 57 and 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 and implement the statutory mandate of confidentiality during inquiry and investigation. They do not extinguish the principles of natural justice, since the statutory scheme provides for disclosure and hearing at the appropriate later stage. No violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) or 21 was established.

Conclusion: The regulations were upheld as valid and intra vires.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the denial of access and to the validity of the confidentiality regulations was rejected, and the writ petitions did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the preliminary stage of a Competition Act inquiry, confidentiality under the statutory scheme prevails over a claimed right to inspection, and delegated regulations implementing that scheme are valid unless shown to be clearly ultra vires or manifestly arbitrary.

---