Madison–CCI case deferred to May 11

The court, however, has ordered that the interim relief granted to Madison earlier will remain in force until the next hearing

by e4m Staff
Published: Feb 26, 2026 7:12 PM | 2 min read

The Delhi High Court has pushed the hearing in the case between Madison Communications Pvt. Ltd. and the Competition Commission of India to May 11, 2026. The court, however, has ordered that the interim relief granted earlier will remain in force until the next hearing.

In the last hearing, the Union government did not place its reply on record in the petition filed by Madison Media challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigation into alleged cartelisation by major media and advertising agencies. The lapse drew a sharp response from the Delhi High Court, which cautioned the Centre that continued non-compliance could lead to adverse consequences.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Gedela, granted the Centre a final two-week deadline to submit its affidavit, making it clear that failure to do so would force the court to draw an adverse inference. The matter will be heard next on February 26, 2026.

Madison was among several advertising agencies and broadcasters searched by the CCI in March as part of a probe into alleged collusion over media rates and discounts. The investigation is one of the most extensive enforcement actions ever undertaken in the Indian advertising ecosystem.

The CCI investigation was triggered by information submitted under its leniency programme in early 2024, reportedly by dentsu. Preliminary findings had suggested that several leading agencies may have coordinated pricing strategies through informal channels, including messaging platforms.

Madison has argued that the Commission’s own order had found that members of the ISA circulated a Model Agency Agreement that restricted negotiation powers and hurt agency revenue. The agency claims that members of the Advertising Agencies Association of India were actually the victims and not the perpetrators.

Despite this, Madison alleges, the DG targeted advertising agencies while no similar search action was taken against ISA members. The company said the process was arbitrary and caused significant reputational harm.