The Competition Commission of India rejected a plea accusing Reliance Jio and thousands of entities of cartelisation and abuse of dominance
The regulator found the allegations to be generic, speculative and unsupported by documentary or empirical evidence
It ruled that no prima facie case existed under Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint accusing Reliance Jio Infocom Limited and more than 4,500 entities from multiple industries of engaging in anti-competitive practices, holding that the allegations were not backed by sufficient evidence to justify an investigation.
According to the CCI order, the complaint was filed by one Goutam Mohanta under the Competition Act, 2002, against Reliance Jio and thousands of companies operating across sectors including telecommunications, logistics, Government e-Marketplace (GeM) procurement, energy, infrastructure, cement, steel, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods and real estate.
4 July 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Business
The Commission closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act after finding no prima facie case of contravention.
CCI Finds Allegations Lacked Supporting Material
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, claiming the companies were involved in price coordination, market sharing, bid-rigging, exclusionary conduct and abuse of dominance.
However, the CCI observed that the allegations were broad in nature and failed to identify the specific role played by any individual company.
According to the order, the complainant did not provide details of the alleged agreements, the period during which the conduct supposedly took place or any material showing how the companies coordinated their actions.
The Commission also noted that directing an investigation without such foundational facts would amount to undertaking a "roving and fishing inquiry".
Telecom Claims Not Supported by Evidence
With respect to the telecom sector, the complaint alleged that operators in eastern and north-eastern India adopted similar recharge plans, including common validity periods of 28 days and 84 days, comparable tariffs and similar data policies.
According to the CCI order, these allegations were based only on a comparison of publicly available prepaid plans. The Commission found no evidence suggesting coordination or a meeting of minds among telecom operators.
"The Commission is of the view that mere existence of parallel or similar pricing in an oligopolistic market cannot by itself be prima facie indicative of prohibited conduct under Section 3 of the Act," the order said.
Logistics and GeM Allegations Also Rejected
The complaint further alleged that logistics companies coordinated freight rates, allocated transport routes and prevented smaller operators from entering certain corridors.
It also claimed that vendors on the GeM platform engaged in bid-rigging through recurring participation, similar pricing and concentration of contract awards.
According to the CCI order, no freight quotations, invoices, bid documents, correspondence or other contemporaneous records were submitted to support the logistics allegations.
The Commission also noted that the complaint did not identify the entities allegedly involved, the relevant transport corridors or the period during which the alleged conduct occurred.
On the GeM-related claims, the Commission found that the complainant had neither identified the companies allegedly involved in bid-rigging nor produced material indicating coordination, information exchange or bid rotation.
The CCI also observed that similar allegations relating to other sectors remained generic and speculative, without sector-specific evidence linking any company to anti-competitive conduct. The Commission held that no prima facie violation of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act had been established and closed the proceedings under Section 26(2).
