CCI committed to balanced regulatory approach, firm where necessary, flexible where appropriate: Ravneet Kaur

New Delhi: Competition Commission of India (CCI) chairperson Ravneet Kaur on Friday said the watchdog remains committed to a balanced regulatory approach--firm where necessary and flexible where appropriate—and that the antitrust law isn't "intended to micro-manage markets".

This regulatory approach is anchored in the objective of fostering competition without stifling innovation to serve consumers and the broader economy, she said.

Kaur was delivering the keynote address at an annual conference in Mumbai on competition law and practice, jointly organized by the CCI and the Confederation of Indian Industry.


The competition law, Kaur underscored, must evolve to examine the conduct of players--especially in the digital market--in the broader economic context, focusing on effects of practices rather than mere form.

In the digital markets, scale, network effects, data advantages, and platform governance rules can decisively shape competitive outcomes.

“The objective (of the regulator) is not to penalise success, but to ensure that success does not translate into unfair exclusion or irreversible market concentration,” she said.

In contemporary markets, particularly in the digital space, competition issues often arise not from explicit agreements or easily identifiable price conduct, but from exclusionary strategies, leveraging of market power, and control over entire ecosystems, she said.

Companies may operate across multiple, interconnected markets, using advantages in one segment to reinforce dominance in another, she said.

Commenting on a market study on artificial intelligence commissioned by the CCI, Kaur said the watchdog has adopted a ‘light-touch’ regulatory approach, preferring persuasion and self-regulation.

Balancing regulation and innovation

The competition law, Kaur stressed, is “not intended to micro-manage markets or substitute regulatory judgment for business decision-making.”

So, regulatory intervention must be proportionate, evidence-based, and economically sound, targeting only those practices that distort competition, she said.

Excessive or premature intervention may dampen investment incentives and chill innovation, she said. At the same time, inaction in the face of clear market distortions can allow harm to become entrenched.

“The challenge for a mature competition authority is to strike this balance with institutional restraint, analytical rigour, and predictability,” she said.

“Regulation must not stifle innovation, nor should it allow market power to become entrenched in ways that harm competition and consumer welfare over the long term,” she added.