EXCLUSIVE: “Delay could render petition infructuous": Publicis Groupe tells Delhi HC in CCI case

TLG India Private Limited, the Indian arm of French advertising giant Publicis Groupe, on Monday told the Delhi High Court that any delay in judicial intervention could render its petition against the Competition Commission of India (CCI) infructuous.

During the hearing, Publicis’ Senior counsel Ritin Rai emphasized that the matter required urgent judicial intervention following a search and seizure operation conducted at TLG India’s offices. The petitioner argued that delaying court review could render the petition infructuous, particularly as access to key records had been denied, preventing the company from fully understanding the scope of the investigation.

The court was informed that CCI was server with a notice to file its reply in two weeks in December 2025 but has not filed any formal reply to the interim application. Publicis’ legal team highlighted that once the investigation report is concluded, the company’s ability to challenge the proceedings could be severely curtailed. Counsel also argued that ongoing actions, including raids targeting company officers, could compromise the integrity of the investigation if procedural safeguards were not maintained.

A key contention raised by TLG India relates to the identification of entities in the investigation. The petition claims that the regulator has repeatedly cited “Publicis Groupe” — a brand and trademark — rather than the correct legal entity, TLG India Pvt. Ltd., raising concerns over procedural fairness. Counsel argued that “Publicis Groupe” is neither a juristic person nor an “enterprise” under the Competition Act, 2002, and thus cannot be directly subjected to investigation.

The court, after hearing arguments, observed that while the investigation would continue, the petitioner’s rights would remain protected and subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on February 17, 2026.

TLG India had filed the petition seeking several directions, including the quashing of summonses issued to its management, inspection rights over case records, and formal substitution of TLG India Pvt. Ltd. as the proper opposite party in the proceedings. The petition also sought rectification of an earlier order dated September 8, 2024, under Section 38 of the Competition Act.

The company claims that CCI’s investigation, launched in March 2025, into alleged price-fixing and collusion among major advertising agencies — including Publicis, WPP’s GroupM, Dentsu, Omnicom, Havas, Madison, and IPG — along with industry bodies such as the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), has been procedurally flawed. Publicis argues that denial of access to preliminary findings and inspection rights violates principles of natural justice under Sections 36(1) and 41 of the Competition Act and infringes upon its fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

During the raid, the company said its counsel was prevented from interacting with employees, though key officials including CEO Acharya and CFO Suraj Shetty cooperated fully, with the panchnama bearing TLG India’s seal, reinforcing that it is the principal entity representing Publicis in India.

TLG India was represented by a team from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas comprising Senior Counsel Ritin Rai, Avaantika Kakkar, Partner (Head of Competition), Aman Singh Baroka, Principal Associate, Dhruv Rajain, Partner and associate Varun Singh.

The petition cites precedents including MRF Limited v. CCI and the Supreme Court ruling in CCI v. Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Others (2014), emphasizing that only entities engaged in commercial activity can be considered “enterprises” for the purpose of anti-competitive investigations. Publicis contends that vague references to brand names in regulatory proceedings undermine due process and legal certainty.

Monday’s hearing underscores the growing friction between major advertising players and India’s competition watchdog, particularly around procedural safeguards, entity identification, and access to investigative records.