Breaking: “CCI behaved like the Enforcement Directorate”, Madison tells Delhi HC

On Monday, the Delhi High Court bench led by Justice Sachin Datta heard extensive arguments in a petition filed by Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd., challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigative procedures, search and seizure operations, and the scope of the Director General’s (DG) authority.

The petition seeks to quash the CCI’s search and seizure action, declare it illegal, and set aside the regulator’s initial prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.

Senior counsel appearing for Madison argued that the statutory framework requires the CCI to first form a prima facie opinion explicitly naming all entities to be investigated before the DG initiates any probe. The petitioner submitted that the DG has no independent authority to expand the scope of the investigation by adding new parties without the Commission’s prior approval.

“The CCI behaved like the Enforcement Directorate, as if it was a criminal case,” Madison’s counsel submitted, stressing that the DG’s actions amounted to a “fishing and roving inquiry.”

The counsel also highlighted that Madison has not been given access to seized material. “The only thing shown to us is the CCI’s own order — no underlying material, no seized documents. We are expected to pay fees without even knowing how many pages or which documents are involved,” counsel told the court.

Another major issue debated on Monday concerned Regulations 46 and 47 of the CCI (General) Regulations, which govern the presence of legal counsel during DG investigations. Madison, which was summoned to appear before the DG, challenged the restrictions imposed on lawyers, arguing that the regulations unreasonably limit the ability to consult with counsel during questioning.

The bench noted, “If the Supreme Court has made an interim arrangement on this issue, there is no reason why we should not follow that.”

The CCI’s counsel countered that the Supreme Court’s interim order does not amount to a stay on the regulations and that the existing Division Bench ruling remains binding. The Commission maintained that the regulations simply codify the Supreme Court’s position and should be applied to Madison’s case accordingly.

Madison’s legal team sought a one-week deferment of the DG summons scheduled for October 14, arguing that the legal questions raised in the petition require detailed consideration. “This matter started in 2024. There’s no urgency that warrants proceeding tomorrow without resolving these fundamental issues,” the counsel submitted.

The bench indicated its willingness to defer the summons by a week and directed both parties to place the relevant Supreme Court and High Court orders on record for further consideration.

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.

The High Court will continue to hear the matter after both sides file the relevant judicial orders. A formal decision on the DG summons deferment and the legal representation issue is expected in the next hearing on October 14.

Read More: "We are victims," says Madison in writ petition filed against the CCI

Read More: Madison alleges CCI 20-hour raid unlawful; calls search ‘opaque and unconstitutional’