Madison vs CCI: Delhi HC sets December 15 hearing; interim protection continues

The Delhi High Court has set December 15 for hearing Madison Communication’s challenge to the investigative powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), with the court directing that any existing interim protection will continue. The petition raises constitutional questions over the CCI’s investigative reach, including whether its Director General can expand a probe beyond the parties and allegations forming the basis of the regulator’s prima facie opinion.  

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, listed Madison’s petition for December 15 and directed that any interim order already operating in the matter would continue. 

The matter, filed along with connected applications, is part of a wider legal challenge concerning how the CCI conducts investigations. This includes the extent to which its Director General can expand an investigation beyond the entities specifically identified when the regulator forms its prima facie opinion.

Madison has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, arguing that the provision does not permit the Director General to broaden an investigation beyond the parties and allegations forming the basis of the CCI’s prima facie opinion.

The advertising agency has argued that allowing the investigative arm to independently expand the scope of a probe amounts to excessive delegation of the CCI’s statutory powers and raises concerns about natural justice.

The CCI, however, has defended the breadth of the Director General’s investigative mandate. Its position is that once the commission forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1), the Director General is entitled to investigate entities and conduct connected with the subject matter of the case.

Madison has maintained that the investigation evolved from a leniency application filed in February 2024, which, according to the company, primarily raised allegations concerning a possible buyers’ cartel involving advertisers operating through the Indian Society of Advertisers.

The agency has argued that the subsequent investigation instead placed substantial focus on advertising agencies. Madison has also questioned the differential treatment of agencies and advertisers, citing the search and seizure operation carried out at its Mumbai office in March 2025.

Madison challenges the interpretation of the CCI’s prima facie order and the subsequent investigation by the Director General. The company referred to the Model Agency Agreement allegedly circulated by the ISA, arguing that restrictions on negotiation between advertisers and agencies affected agency revenue models.

Madison, a member of the Advertising Agencies Association of India, has also maintained that AAAI’s guidelines on media agency remuneration were intended to protect agencies from the impact of such practices.

The company therefore questioned whether the Director General could move beyond the original allegations and investigate a broader set of entities and conduct without a fresh or more specific direction from the CCI.

Regulations governing lawyers also under challenge

The case has expanded beyond the scope of competition investigations to include provisions of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024 governing the conduct and participation of advocates during investigations.

Madison has challenged Regulations 46(3), 46(4), 46A and 47(c), among others, arguing that the provisions exceed the commission’s statutory authority and interfere with the Bar Council of India’s regulatory jurisdiction.

Regulations 46(3) and 46(4) have come under particular scrutiny because Madison contends that they enable the CCI to take action against conduct characterised as professional misconduct by authorised representatives appearing during proceedings.

The company argues that disciplinary control over advocates is governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 and rests with the statutory Bar Council framework.

The challenge has brought the Bar Council of India directly into the litigation. The BCI has argued that the Advocates Act is a complete statutory code governing enrolment, professional conduct and disciplinary proceedings involving advocates.

According to the BCI’s position, a regulator functioning under another statute cannot create a parallel disciplinary framework for lawyers through subordinate legislation.

The council has specifically opposed provisions that, in its view, could expose advocates to findings or consequences relating to professional misconduct during CCI investigations. It has also challenged the language used in the regulations to describe conduct that could be considered inappropriate during proceedings.

Legal representation during CCI questioning

Another important issue concerns Regulation 47(c), which permits advocates to accompany individuals summoned for questioning but restricts them from remaining within hearing distance while statements are recorded.

Madison and the BCI have challenged this arrangement, arguing that the presence of a lawyer becomes substantially limited if counsel cannot hear the questions being asked and answers being given.

The BCI has argued that such a restriction could prevent lawyers from effectively advising clients, asserting privilege, identifying procedural irregularities or intervening where questioning raises legal concerns.

The council has also questioned the use of expressions relating to “defiant behaviour,” undermining the prestige of the commission and conduct considered offensive to institutional dignity, arguing that such language could be vague and potentially affect legitimate adversarial advocacy.

The CCI has maintained that its regulatory framework is within the scope of its statutory mandate. It has also sought to distinguish provisions concerning authorised representatives from the disciplinary jurisdiction exercised over advocates by the Bar Council.

CCI advertising probe in wider regulatory spotlight

The Madison litigation comes as the CCI continues to face legal scrutiny over its approach to investigations involving the advertising and media-buying sector.

The broader probe has examined alleged coordination among participants in the advertising ecosystem, with agencies and industry bodies coming under the regulator’s lens.

Madison’s challenge has raised a separate question over whether an investigation triggered by a particular set of allegations can subsequently expand to encompass other entities or conduct identified by the Director General during the investigation.

The outcome could have implications beyond the advertising sector because the interpretation of Section 26(1) could determine how far the CCI’s investigative machinery can travel after the commission has recorded its initial prima facie view.

The litigation also puts the CCI’s 2024 General Regulations under constitutional scrutiny, particularly where the regulations intersect with the rights of parties to legal representation and the statutory disciplinary jurisdiction of professional bodies.

For now, the High Court has not adjudicated these substantive issues and consequently listed the matters for December 15, continuing any applicable interim protection.

The proceedings therefore remain pending, with the constitutional questions surrounding the CCI’s investigative reach, its regulations governing advocates and the broader advertising-sector investigation yet to be decided on merits.