Examine the issue of jurisdictional overlap between CCI and sectoral financial regulators such as SEBI/RBI in India. Suggest measures for better coordination.

The Competition Act, 2002 gives the CCI economy-wide jurisdiction over anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance [2], while SEBI and RBI regulate conduct within securities and banking markets. Where the same entity is both a regulated intermediary and a market player, the two mandates collide — as in the CCI's recent cease-and-desist order against the Trustees' Association of India and three SEBI-registered debenture trustees for fixing benchmark fees [1].

Nature and causes of the overlap

• Dual regulation of the same entity: debenture trustees are SEBI-registered, yet their collective fee-fixing during FY21–FY22 was examined by the CCI as cartelisation under Section 3 [1][2].
• Different objects: sectoral regulators pursue prudential stability and investor protection; the CCI targets harm to the competitive process — the same conduct yields different tests.
• Structural overlaps: bank mergers, payment systems and combination approvals engage both RBI/SEBI clearance and CCI's combination review [3].

Implications

• Forum uncertainty and litigation: in CCI v. Bharti Airtel (2018) the Supreme Court held that the sectoral regulator must first decide jurisdictional facts before the CCI acts — clarifying sequencing, but only for one sector [4].
• Risk of both over- and under-enforcement: parallel proceedings raise compliance costs, while regulatory deference can leave collusion in professional and financial services unaddressed.
• Weak statutory glue: the mutual-consultation route under Sections 21 and 21A is advisory and non-binding, hence under-used [2].

Measures for better coordination

• Make cross-references under Sections 21/21A mandatory and time-bound in overlapping matters.
• Operationalise the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 framework — including MoUs and the settlement/commitment mechanism — to fix clear division-of-work protocols with SEBI and RBI [3].
• Institutionalise a standing inter-regulatory coordination forum and joint capacity-building on competition economics.
• Adopt the Bharti Airtel sequencing principle as a general written protocol: sectoral regulator first on technical facts, CCI on competition harm.

Regulatory overlap is a governance design problem, not a turf war. Clear, statutorily anchored coordination — expertise with the sectoral regulator, competition assessment with the CCI — will secure both financial stability and freedom of trade, the constitutional value the Act ultimately serves.