'Regulatory zeal must not come at the cost of procedural fairness.' Discuss in the context of recent CCI orders being overturned by appellate forums.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) exercises quasi-judicial powers under the Competition Act, 2002, to penalise anti-competitive conduct [2]. Yet enforcement without audi alteram partem is enforcement without legitimacy — a point underlined when the Supreme Court in 2026 upheld the NCLAT's quashing of CCI's ₹301.6 crore penalty on Grasim Industries [1].

Why regulatory zeal is legitimate and necessary

• Market correction mandate: Section 4 bars abuse of dominant position — discriminatory pricing, denial of market access, and imposition of unconnected supplementary obligations [2]. CCI's 2020 order against Grasim in the viscose staple fibre market alleged exactly such conduct affecting downstream spinners [1].
• Consumer and MSME protection: unchecked dominance in an intermediate input raises costs across the textile value chain.
• Deterrence: the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 strengthened CCI through settlement and commitment mechanisms and deal-value thresholds [3].

Where procedural fairness was compromised

• Departure from the DG's report without hearing: the NCLAT (May 2026) held that when the Commission differs from its investigative wing — the Director General — notice and a fresh hearing are mandatory; CCI gave Grasim no such opportunity [1].
• Judicial affirmation: the Supreme Court dismissed CCI's appeal and remanded the matter for re-hearing, without ruling on the merits of dominance [1].
• Cost of haste: a 2020 penalty stood undecided into 2026 — procedural shortcuts delayed, rather than delivered, regulatory finality.

Way forward

• Codify a show-cause stage whenever the Commission proposes to depart from DG findings.
• Strengthen the DG's investigative capacity and reasoned order-writing within CCI.
• Use the 2023 Act's settlement and commitment route for faster, litigation-light closure [3].

Procedural fairness is not a brake on regulation but its foundation: an order that survives appeal disciplines the market, while one that collapses on natural-justice grounds disciplines no one. Aligning CCI's speed with Article 14's guarantee of fair procedure — as the Competition Law Review Committee envisaged [3] — will make Indian competition enforcement both swift and durable.