EXCLUSIVE: Madison files second petition against CCI in Delhi HC; Questions regulator’s core powers

Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. has intensified its legal confrontation with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by filing a second writ petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Competition Act as well as newly introduced CCI regulations.

The fresh petition, heard by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Gedela, further escalates the dispute between one of India’s largest advertising agencies and the competition watchdog.

In this latest filing, Madison has challenged the vires of Section 26(1) of the Competition Act. This provision empowers the CCI to order an investigation by the Director General (DG) upon forming a prima facie view that a case “fairly requires inquiry.” Madison argued that the prima facie opinion does not mean that DG can add parties in the case. The parties need to be identified by the CCI while forming prima facie opinion and the power to add parties or investigate unnamed parties cannot be sub delegated to DG. DG has no suo-moto powers to investigate any unnamed parties.

Read More: Breaking: Delhi HC seeks CCI reply as Madison challenges ‘One-Sided’ competition probe

Accordingly, section 26(1) in the present form has to be either held unconstiutional or read down to mean that prima facie opinion has to be formed against an identified and named party.

Beyond the statute, Madison’s petition also assails multiple clauses under the CCI General Regulations, 2024. The company contends that Regulations 46(3), 46(4) and the accompanying explanation grant the CCI the power to hold advocates guilty of “professional misconduct” during DG examinations and Commission proceedings.

Madison argues that the Competition Act does not confer disciplinary authority over lawyers upon the CCI, and such powers rest exclusively with the Bar Council under the Advocates Act. According to the petition, these provisions overstep the statutory framework by enabling the regulator to police legal representation, which Madison claims interferes with the right to counsel and undermines procedural fairness.

Madison has also challenged Regulation 19(3) of the 2024 Regulations, which restricts the publication of prima facie orders to matters involving vertical restraints under Section 3(4) and abuse of dominance under Section 4. The agency argues that this selective publication norm is arbitrary and lacks statutory backing, since the Competition Act does not authorise the regulator to decide which categories of prima facie orders may or may not be made public. Madison maintains that such a rule curtails transparency and selectively shapes public perception of antitrust proceedings.

Madison has also challenged Regulation 47(c) to the extent that it does not allow an advocate to be present at a hearing distance while recording of statements on oath which is directly in violation of section 30 of the Advocates Act and also effectively prohibits the witness from seeking legal assistance.

During the hearing, the CCI provided an undertaking that it would not summon officials of Madison for recording statements until the next date of hearing, which the court has fixed for January 8, 2026. The notice has been issued to Union of India and CCI directing to file their reply within two weeks.

Madison was represented by Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate, Anu Monga, Partner AnantLaw Rahul Goel, Partner AnantLaw

This second petition builds upon Madison’s earlier writ, in which the High Court had directed the CCI to file its response within two weeks. That matter, being heard by a bench led by Justice Sachin Dutta, was scheduled for December 8. In the initial case, Madison sought to quash the probe into alleged collusion in the advertising sector, insisting that the investigation was wrongly directed at advertising agencies while overlooking what it characterises as a “buyers’ cartel” among major advertisers represented through the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA).

The dispute traces back to a leniency application filed in February 2024, which Madison claims primarily alleged cartelisation by advertisers. Despite this, the Director General expanded the investigation to focus heavily on advertising agencies, culminating in a 20-hour search and seizure operation at Madison’s Mumbai office in March 2025. The agency claims that this action was disproportionate and discriminatory, particularly as no equivalent raid or investigative action was executed against ISA or its member advertisers, despite the CCI’s own prima facie observations referencing a Model Agency Agreement allegedly circulated by ISA.

Madison’s petition reiterates that the Model Agency Agreement imposed uniform commercial terms that restricted negotiation between advertisers and agencies and adversely impacted agency revenue structures. Despite these concerns, the company argues, the CCI’s investigation has targeted agencies rather than the advertiser body that allegedly initiated the restrictive framework. Madison further asserts that the DG’s expansion of the investigation beyond the scope of the leniency application amounts to “excessive delegation” and a misuse of investigative authority.

Chairman Sam Balsara and Executive Director Vikram Sakhuja, who are co-petitioners, have also alleged that the DG’s actions have caused reputational harm to the company and were undertaken in an arbitrary manner unsupported by the original allegations.

The case is being closely watched across the competition law and advertising ecosystem, as the challenge cuts to the core of how the CCI initiates investigations, how it regulates conduct during inquiries, and how transparently it publishes its preliminary findings. With Madison now contesting not just the investigation but the structural validity of several powers exercised by the regulator, the High Court’s eventual ruling could reshape procedural boundaries in India’s competition enforcement regime.

The matter will next be heard on January 8, 2026, with the CCI bound by its undertaking until that date.