CCI cartel probe: DG summons withdrawn amid ongoing Delhi HC proceedings in Madison case
During the hearing, counsel for Madison also indicated that an interim application should be heard before any new summons are issued, to address outstanding procedural concerns.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard extensive arguments in a writ petition filed by Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd., challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) search and seizure operations and the scope of the Director General’s (DG) investigative powers. During the hearing, the DG’s summons issued to Madison for October 14 were withdrawn, with the Court recording the statement and adjourning the matter.
The hearing before a single-judge bench led by Justice Sachin Datta focused on procedural and statutory questions surrounding the CCI’s probe, which stemmed from a leniency application filed in February 2024. Madison has challenged both the legality of the CCI’s prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act and the DG’s authority to expand the scope of the investigation.
During the hearing, counsel for Madison also indicated that an interim application should be heard before any new summons are issued, to address outstanding procedural concerns. The court agreed to grant two weeks’ time for further steps and indicated that the matter would be taken up again after three weeks.
The bench recorded a statement made on behalf of the DG that the summons stood withdrawn, and noted that fresh summons, if required, would be issued in due course. This effectively kept the summons in abeyance, giving the petitioner time to pursue interim relief on legal representation and investigative procedure.
Senior counsel appearing for Madison argued that the statutory scheme requires the CCI to first explicitly name all entities to be investigated before the DG can initiate any probe. “The DG has no independent power to add new parties to the investigation without prior approval from the Commission,” counsel submitted, alleging that the DG’s actions amounted to a “fishing and roving inquiry” akin to enforcement in criminal cases.
Madison was represented by senior advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Rahul Goel. The matter will be heard again by Delhi HC on 17 November.
The bench also addressed issues arising from Regulations 46 and 47 of the CCI (General) Regulations, which govern the presence and consultation of legal counsel during DG questioning. Madison contended that these restrictions are unreasonable and impede effective legal assistance. Justice Datta observed that if the Supreme Court has made interim arrangements on this issue, there is no reason the High Court should not follow them.
The writ petition challenges the CCI’s investigation that led to a 20-hour search and seizure operation at Madison’s Mumbai office on March 18–19, 2025. Madison contends that the original leniency application filed in February 2024 alleged a buyers’ cartel among advertisers operating under the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA).
According to Madison, the CCI’s prima facie order itself notes that ISA members circulated a Model Agency Agreement (MAA) that restricted negotiations between advertisers and agencies and adversely impacted agencies’ revenue models. Madison, a member of the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), claims that AAAI and its members were actually victims of the alleged cartel, not perpetrators.
Despite this, Madison argues, the DG targeted agencies through search operations while no equivalent searches were carried out on ISA members. The company claims the DG’s actions were discriminatory and arbitrary, causing severe reputational damage.
