A business, consumer or association with evidence of a cartel or an abuse of dominance can file information before the CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. You need not have suffered the harm yourself, but you must file within three years.
That information is one of three routes into an inquiry by the Competition Commission of India under Section 19(1), the other two being the Commission’s own motion and a reference from the Central Government, a State Government or a statutory authority. The information route exists so that the people who first see anti-competitive conduct, such as the dealer squeezed out of a market or the buyer facing a rigged tender, can put it before the regulator. In Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India the Supreme Court described proceedings under the Act as proceedings in rem that affect the public interest. The informant therefore starts the case and the Commission then runs it, with no private relief for the informant to claim and no suit for it to settle.
Since the Commission runs the case, most of what an informant can do is done at the point of filing, and the Commission forms its first view on those papers. In Case No. 04 of 2025, decided in July 2025, an individual whose business premises in Chennai were damaged in the flood of December 2015 had filed information over the insurer’s handling of the insurance claim, and the Commission refused to condone the delay because no sufficient cause was shown. It also found the insurer was not dominant in a general insurance market with many competitors, and closed the matter under Section 26(2).
A closure of that kind can be ordered without the informant being heard, and in 2026 both the appellate tribunal and the Delhi High Court held as much. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India that the law does not envisage a hearing where the Commission finds no prima facie case, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against that ruling at the admission stage. In KSD Zonne Energie LLP v. Competition Commission of India, the Delhi High Court then held that an informant is not entitled to notice or a hearing before a closure under Section 26(2), and that its remedy is an appeal to the Tribunal rather than a writ petition. For the person filing, the written information is therefore the one hearing it can be sure of before the Commission decides.
Whether a trader shut out by a trade association can take that boycott to the CCI, and what the information must carry, is easiest to see on one case. A pharmaceutical stockist, run as a proprietorship with a turnover under ₹2 crore, sets up in a district town. The district chemists’ association withholds the “no objection” that it says every new stockist needs, and the distributors stop supplying the stockist.
Three questions follow for the stockist once its supplies stop. The first is whether a single trader may file information at all, and the second is whom the information should name. The third is whether the boycott can be halted while the Commission considers the case.
The stockist may file as “any person” under Section 19(1)(a), and its information names the association, because a decision taken by an association of enterprises falls within Section 3(3) of the Act. As a proprietorship with a turnover of up to ₹2 crore it pays a fee of ₹50,000, and it can file an interlocutory application for interim relief under Section 33 along with the information. Whether an investigation follows then depends on the prima facie opinion the Commission forms on those papers.
Grievances the CCI can take up on your information
The grievances the CCI can take up on your information are those alleging an anti-competitive agreement or an abuse of dominance, and you can file as “any person”, which the Supreme Court has read to include someone who is neither a consumer nor a competitor of the enterprise named. Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 allows the Commission to act on information “from any person, consumer or their association or trade association”. In Samir Agrawal, a practising lawyer filed information alleging that the pricing algorithms of Ola and Uber fixed fares for their drivers in a hub-and-spoke cartel. The Supreme Court held that he had standing to file it and to appeal its closure, even though his appeal then failed on the merits.
An informant who files under Section 19(1)(a) is not a complainant suing for its own loss, so filing does not by itself bring the informant compensation. A claim for compensation is made separately to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 53N, and it rests on findings of contravention that the Commission or the Tribunal has already recorded.
Agreements and conduct an information before the CCI can cover
An information before the CCI can cover an agreement alleged to contravene Section 3(1) or conduct alleged to contravene Section 4(1), and Section 19(1) reaches nothing else. The first category takes in cartels, bid rigging and decisions of trade associations under Section 3(3), and it also takes in vertical arrangements between firms at different levels of a supply chain, such as exclusive supply or refusal to deal, under Section 3(4). The second category is abuse of a dominant position, for which the CCI’s format asks the informant to set out the relevant market along with the evidence.
Mergers and acquisitions are not the subject of a Section 19 information. The parties to a combination notify it to the Commission under Section 6, and Section 20(1) separately allows the Commission to inquire into a combination on its own knowledge or on information it receives, so a rival’s concern about a deal goes to the Commission under those combination provisions and not as a Section 19 information. The merger control regime runs on its own thresholds and timelines.
A dispute about one contract or one consumer’s claim also falls outside, unless it shows an effect on competition in a market. That was the second ground in Case No. 04 of 2025, where the Commission found an insurer facing many competitors not dominant, so a delayed claim raised no competition concern. The CCI’s format asks the informant to satisfy itself before filing that the issue is covered by the Act, and to state in the information why the Commission has jurisdiction.
The three-year limit on filing information before the CCI
The three-year limit on filing information before the CCI was added to Section 19(1) by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, and it has applied since 18 May 2023. Its first proviso states that the Commission “shall not entertain an information or a reference unless it is filed within three years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”. The second proviso allows the Commission to entertain a later filing if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay, after recording its reasons for condoning it.
What does a late informant have to file? Regulation 10(3) of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024 requires an information filed after three years to be accompanied by an interlocutory application seeking condonation of the delay, and that application carries its own fee. The CCI’s format asks whether the last date on which the cause of action arose is more than three years old, which matters where the conduct complained of is still going on.
The application has to explain the delay rather than restate the grievance. In Case No. 04 of 2025 the Commission rejected the condonation application because the informant had not given adequate or convincing reasons that could amount to sufficient cause, and the closure of the information followed.
Drafting and filing your information before the CCI
Drafting and filing your information before the CCI means preparing a signed statement in the form the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024 lay down, verified by affidavit, with the evidence annexed and proof of the fee attached. The Commission notified these Regulations on 17 September 2024 and repealed the 2009 Regulations at the same time, so a filing modelled on an older precedent can miss requirements that are now mandatory. Regulation 10 requires the information to state, under separate heads, who the informant is, which enterprise is alleged to have contravened the Act, and how each of them can be reached.
Which facts does the Commission expect to see? Regulation 10(2) asks for a statement of facts in chronological order, the details of each alleged contravention with a list of the documents and evidence relied on, the date of the cause of action, a short narrative in support, the relief sought and any litigation pending between the parties. It also asks whether the same or substantially the same facts have already been decided by the Commission, which is the ground on which Section 26(2A) later allows the Commission to decline an inquiry. An informant who checks the Commission’s earlier orders while drafting learns before filing whether the information is likely to be turned away on that ground.
Regulation 10(4) requires the whole information to be supported by an affidavit verifying its contents. Regulation 11 fixes who signs it, which is the individual, the karta of a Hindu undivided family, the managing director or an authorised person of a company, the president or secretary of an association, or a partner of a firm. The CCI’s filing instructions require the text to be typed in Arial 12 on both sides of A4 paper in double spacing, with a two-inch left margin, and no filing may be made on a letterhead.
Filing fee under Regulation 50 and the modes of filing
The filing fee under Regulation 50 depends on who the informant is. An individual or a Hindu undivided family pays ₹6,000, and a non-government organisation, consumer association, co-operative society or trust pays ₹12,000. A firm or company, including a proprietorship, a limited liability partnership and a one-person company, pays ₹50,000 where its turnover in the preceding year was up to ₹2 crore and ₹1,25,000 where it was above ₹2 crore and up to ₹50 crore, while every other informant pays ₹6,00,000. The fee is paid by demand draft, pay order or banker’s cheque in favour of the Competition Commission of India (Competition Fund), New Delhi, or by electronic clearance to the Fund’s account.
An interlocutory application filed with the information, whether for condonation of delay or for interim relief, carries a separate fee, which runs from ₹500 for an individual or a Hindu undivided family to ₹5,000 at the top of the scale. How does the information reach the Commission? Under Regulation 12 it is presented to the Secretary, or to an officer the Secretary authorises, in person or by registered post, courier or fax, and the Commission asks for two copies of each document with a PDF copy where possible. Regulation 13 provides for electronic filing with a digital or electronic signature once the Commission has announced that facility by public notice, so the CCI’s filing page is the place to confirm whether it is available for a given filing.
The Secretary then scrutinises the information for defects under Regulation 16. The informant has 30 days from being told of a defect to remove it, and an information whose defects are not removed is treated as invalid, with the fee forfeited.
Confidentiality and interim relief applications with the information
Confidentiality and interim relief are two further requests an informant can make with the information, and each has its own requirements. Can you keep your identity from the enterprise you are informing against? The CCI’s format asks whether the informant claims confidentiality over its identity under Section 57 of the Act read with Regulation 36, so the request is made in the information itself. The Commission still knows who the informant is, because the claim protects the identity from disclosure to others rather than making the filing anonymous.
For documents, Regulation 36 requires cogent reasons for the claim and a self-certification by affidavit that disclosure would reveal trade secrets or destroy or appreciably diminish the commercial value of the information. The full version carries the words “restriction of publication claimed” in red ink on the first page and the word “confidential” in red near the top of each page, and since 2024 the confidential content itself must also be marked in red. A non-confidential version is filed with it.
Interim relief answers a different problem, which is conduct that keeps causing harm while the case is pending. Section 33 allows the Commission, during an inquiry, to restrain a party temporarily from an act in contravention of Section 3(1) or Section 4(1), until the inquiry ends or until further orders, and to do so without notice to that party where it considers it necessary. The CCI’s format asks the informant to explain in the application what irreparable loss it will suffer and how the balance of convenience lies in its favour. Where the Commission does pass an interim order, Regulation 32 requires it to pass a final order within 180 days of that order, as far as possible.
Every statement in the information and in these applications has to be accurate, because Section 45(1) makes a person who furnishes information liable to a fine of up to ₹1 crore. That fine covers a statement known to be false in a material particular, the omission of a material fact and the wilful suppression of a document, and Section 45(2) allows the Commission to pass any other order it thinks fit as well.
Your information after the CCI orders an investigation
Your information reaches an investigation only after the CCI forms a prima facie opinion that a contravention exists and directs the Director General to investigate under Section 26(1), and the Commission forms that opinion without being required to hear you or the enterprise named. In Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010), the Supreme Court held that a direction under Section 26(1) is an administrative and preparatory step, so no party has a right to notice or a hearing before it is made. The Commission may still call a preliminary conference with the informant and others under Regulation 18 of the 2024 Regulations, and that conference need not follow formal rules of procedure.
What happens if someone else has already informed the Commission about the same conduct? The proviso to Section 26(1) allows the Commission to club a new information with an earlier one where it considers the subject matter substantially the same, so that the two are investigated together. The informant’s filing then becomes part of a larger record.
Once the direction is made, the Director General investigates and submits a report within the period the Commission sets under Section 26(3). Since the 2023 amendment the Commission may also direct a further investigation after reading that report, in which case the Director General submits a supplementary report under Sections 26(3A) and 26(3B).
Your information in the Director General’s investigation
Your information in the Director General’s investigation becomes one part of the evidence the Director General gathers, and you take part in the investigation as a source of evidence rather than as a party running a case. Section 41(2) gives the Director General the powers the Commission holds under Section 36(2), including the power to summon and examine any person on oath and to require documents, and the Director General may use those powers on the informant as on anyone else.
Will you see the report the Director General prepares on your information? Section 26(4) states that the Commission “may forward” a copy of the report to the parties concerned, and where the report finds no contravention, Section 26(5) requires the Commission to invite objections or suggestions on it from the parties concerned. Regulation 36(10) provides that the informant is not part of any confidentiality ring and has access to non-confidential records only. The Commission’s General Statement on the 2024 Regulations records that parties generally have eight weeks to file objections or suggestions on the non-confidential version of a report they receive, which is why the informant’s own evidence has to carry the allegation from the start.
Settlement and commitment, both added in 2023, give the enterprise a way to end the inquiry early. An enterprise facing a Section 26(1) inquiry into a vertical agreement under Section 3(4) or an abuse under Section 4 may offer commitments under Section 48B after the direction and before it receives the Director General’s report, or apply for settlement under Section 48A after receiving the report. In each case the Commission must give “the party concerned, the Director General, or any other party” an opportunity to submit objections and suggestions, words wide enough to extend to the informant, and no appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against the resulting order.
After the objections, the Commission closes the matter under Section 26(6) where it agrees with a report that found no contravention, or it orders further investigation under Section 26(7). Where it proceeds against a contravention, it issues a show-cause notice under Section 26(9) before passing orders under Section 27, which include a penalty of up to ten per cent of the average turnover or income of the last three preceding financial years.
Closure of your information under Section 26(2)
Closure of your information under Section 26(2) follows when the CCI finds no prima facie case, and the provision requires the Commission to “close the matter forthwith” and send a copy of its order to the parties concerned. Since the 2023 amendment, Section 26(2A) adds a second ground on which the Commission “may not inquire” into an agreement or conduct, which is that the same or substantially the same facts and issues raised in the information have already been decided in a previous order. The disclosure Regulation 10 asks for at the drafting stage is where an informant meets that bar first.
Is the informant heard before the Commission closes its information? The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held on 13 January 2026 that the Commission need not hear the informant before closing an information, in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, where the Commission had closed an information in 2017 after finding Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. not dominant in the supply of non-coking coal to thermal power producers. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against that ruling at the admission stage in April 2026.
On 14 May 2026 the Delhi High Court reached the same result in KSD Zonne Energie LLP v. Competition Commission of India, on a writ petition by a solar developer registered as a micro, small or medium enterprise. Relying on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Steel Authority of India, the Court dismissed the petition because the Act provides a statutory appeal.
Appeal to NCLAT against the closure of an information
An appeal to NCLAT against the closure of an information lies under Section 53B of the Act, because Section 53A(1)(a), as amended in 2023, lists orders under Sections 26(2), 26(2A), 26(6) and 26(9) among the orders against which the Appellate Tribunal hears appeals. Section 53B allows “any person” aggrieved by such an order to appeal within sixty days from the date on which it receives a copy, and the Appellate Tribunal may admit a later appeal if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. In Samir Agrawal the Supreme Court held that an informant whose information has been closed is a person aggrieved for this purpose.
In KSD Zonne the Delhi High Court cautioned that an informant who files a writ petition in place of an appeal risks losing the appeal to limitation if the sixty days expire while the writ is pending. The Tribunal’s power to admit a late appeal depends on sufficient cause being shown, and the informant cannot claim it as of right.
An order of the Appellate Tribunal can in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 53T, within sixty days of its communication. A claim for compensation under Section 53N, by contrast, arises only from findings of contravention by the Commission or the Tribunal, so a closed information supports no such claim unless the closure is reversed on appeal.
Frequently asked questions
Can I file information before the CCI without revealing my identity to the other side? You can ask the Commission to keep your identity confidential, because the CCI’s information format asks whether the informant claims confidentiality over its identity under Section 57 of the Competition Act, 2002 read with Regulation 36 of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024. The information itself must still carry your name, address and signature, so the protection is against disclosure to others and not anonymity before the Commission.
Do I need a lawyer to file information before the CCI? You do not need a lawyer to file information before the CCI. Section 35 of the Act allows a person or an enterprise to appear in person or to authorise a legal practitioner, a chartered accountant, a company secretary, a cost accountant or one of its own officers. Only one vakalatnama or authorisation letter is valid for a party at any given time, although it may cover more than one counsel.
Can the CCI club my information with one that is already pending? The CCI can club your information with a pending one under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, where it considers the subject matter substantially the same as, or covered by, the earlier information. Where the earlier matter has already been decided, Section 26(2A) allows the Commission to decline to inquire into yours at all.
Can the CCI award me compensation on my information? The CCI does not award compensation to an informant. A claim for compensation is made to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Section 53N of the Act, and it must arise from findings of contravention already recorded by the Commission or by the Tribunal on appeal.
What happens if the information I file turns out to be false? A person who furnishes information to the CCI and knowingly makes a false statement on a material particular, omits a material fact or wilfully suppresses a document can be fined up to ₹1 crore under Section 45(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. Section 45(2) also allows the Commission to pass any other order it thinks fit.
References
The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003), consolidated text published by the Competition Commission of India (sections cited: 3, 4, 6, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29 to 31, 33, 35, 36, 41, 45, 53A, 53B, 53N, 53T and 57)
The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Act 9 of 2023), Gazette of India, 11 April 2023 (provisos to Section 19(1); Sections 26(2A), 26(3A), 26(3B), 26(9), 48A, 48B and 53A)
Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2024, No. CCI/Reg-G.R./08/2024-25, 17 September 2024 (regulations cited: 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 24, 32, 36, 46 and 50)
Competition Commission of India, General Statement on the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2024 (17 September 2024)
Competition Commission of India, filing page and format for filing information or reference
Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India, (2021) 3 SCC 136 (Supreme Court of India, 15 December 2020)
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744 (Supreme Court of India)
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, 13 January 2026); appeal dismissed at the admission stage by the Supreme Court of India, April 2026
KSD Zonne Energie LLP v. Competition Commission of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4634 (High Court of Delhi, 14 May 2026)
Competition Commission of India, order under Section 26(2) in Case No. 04 of 2025 (7 July 2025)
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The fee, format and filing mode for an information before the Competition Commission of India are set by the CCI (General) Regulations, 2024 and the Commission’s public notices, and they should be checked against the Commission’s filing page on the day of filing.