Delhi HC seeks CCI response on BFI's plea against anti-trust probe

The Delhi High Court sought a response from the CCI on BFI's petition challenging a probe into alleged anti-competitive acts. BFI argues it's a regulator and its actions are not anti-competitive, while the court will hear the matter on March 10.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a response from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on a petition filed by the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) challenging an order directing an investigation into alleged violations of the Competition Act.

The probe was initiated following a complaint by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited, which accused the federation of restricting players and stifling competition.

BFI's Arguments Against Probe

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued notice to the CCI and listed the matter for hearing on March 10. The court also said that BFI's interim request seeking a stay on the ongoing CCI proceedings would be considered on the next date of hearing.

Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, appearing for BFI, submitted that the CCI proceedings could have global ramifications. He argued that BFI, as the regulator of basketball in India, cannot be subjected to investigation for actions taken while discharging its regulatory functions.

Contentions in BFI's Petition

According to the petition, BFI has challenged the CCI's order dated November 25, 2025, passed on a complaint by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited, in which the competition watchdog directed its Director General to conduct an investigation after forming a prima facie view of violations under the Competition Act, 2002.

BFI contends that it is a recognised National Sports Federation under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and acts as the statutory governing body for basketball in the country. It states that its responsibilities include organising national championships, appointing organising partners through competitive tender processes for leagues, and protecting the interests of players and stakeholders.

Allegations Against Complainant

The federation further claims that the complainant had earlier expressed interest in organising a professional basketball league and was given an opportunity to participate in the tender process but failed to submit a bid or present a concrete roadmap. It alleges that the complaint before the CCI was filed with mala fide intent after the entity could not secure a role as an organising partner.

Justification for Player Restrictions

BFI also maintains that cautioning players against participating in unrecognised competitions is a regulatory and policy decision aimed at maintaining discipline and ensuring compliance with international norms, including those set by the International Basketball Federation. It argues that such actions cannot be termed anti-competitive.

Jurisdictional Challenge to CCI's Authority

The plea raises a jurisdictional objection as well, asserting that the CCI cannot scrutinise decisions taken by a statutory sports regulator while performing its regulatory duties. It relies on judicial precedents to argue that regulatory functions, even if they have incidental or indirect economic implications, fall outside the ambit of competition law.

The High Court will take up the matter again on March 10, when it will consider the CCI's response as well as BFI's request for interim relief. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)