Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant” Favours CCI Over TRAI: Kerala HC Upholds Probe Against Jio Hotstar for Abuse of Dominance [Read Order]
Applying Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, the Court held that the Competition Act must prevail in matters of competition law, even if TRAI regulations overlap.
The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling in the long‑running dispute between Jiostar India Pvt Ltd (formerly Star India, now operating as Jio Hotstar) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
On 3 December 2025, the bench upheld the CCI’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of abuse of dominance in the broadcasting sector, rejecting Jiostar’s contention that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was the sole regulator.
The Court applied the doctrine Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant that general law does not override special law to hold that the Competition Act, 2002 operates independently of the TRAI Act, even where overlaps exist.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The dispute originated with a complaint filed by Asianet Digital Network Pvt Ltd (ADNPL), a multi‑system operator in Kerala, alleging that Jiostar had abused its dominant position by offering discriminatory discounts and sham marketing agreements to Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd (KCCL).
ADNPL claimed that Jiostar extended discounts exceeding the 35 per cent cap prescribed under the TRAI Regulations, 2017, routing them through marketing agreements that were not subject to TRAI’s discount restrictions.
This preferential treatment allegedly caused ADNPL to lose subscribers rapidly and suffer financial losses. Acting on the complaint, the CCI passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act on 28 February 2022, directing the Director General to investigate.
Jiostar challenged this order, arguing that the relationship between broadcasters and distributors was governed exclusively by the TRAI Act and its regulations, and that TRAI was the sectoral regulator empowered to adjudicate such disputes.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Jiostar, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2019). In that case, the Court had held that jurisdictional issues in disputes involving interconnection agreements must first be decided by TRAI before the CCI could step in. Rohatgi also cited the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Star India Pvt Ltd v. CCI (2019), where the Court had quashed CCI’s indulgence in a similar dispute, holding that TRAI must first determine violations before CCI could act.
The Kerala High Court, however, distinguished these precedents. It noted that Bharti Airtel was fact‑specific, involving Reliance Jio’s request for interconnection points from incumbent telecom operators, and could not be read as a blanket bar on CCI’s jurisdiction in all cases where TRAI regulations were implicated.
Similarly, the Bombay High Court’s view could not restrict the statutory powers of the CCI under the Competition Act. The Bench highlighted that the Competition Act is a special law dealing with anti‑competitive practices such as abuse of dominance and cartelisation, while the TRAI Act regulates telecom and broadcasting services but does not specifically address competition issues.
Applying Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.held that the Competition Act must prevail in matters of competition law, even if TRAI regulations overlap.
On the question of natural justice, Jiostar argued that the CCI’s order was passed ex parte without hearing them, violating their right to be heard. The Court rejected this contention, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744. It held that a Section 26(1) order is administrative in nature, directing investigation, and does not entail civil consequences.
Therefore, no prior hearing is required, and the principles of natural justice are not violated at this stage. Jiostar would have ample opportunity to contest jurisdiction and merits before the CCI during the investigation.
The Court also addressed the overlap between TRAI and CCI, observing that while TRAI regulates pricing and contractual terms in broadcasting, it does not have explicit provisions to deal with anti‑competitive practices.
The allegations raised by ADNPL went beyond mere non‑compliance with TRAI regulations and involved abuse of dominance and denial of market access, which fall squarely within the Competition Act. The Bench concluded that the writ petition was premature, as the CCI’s order did not cause civil consequences and Jiostar could raise its objections before the Commission itself.
In dismissing Jiostar’s writ appeal, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the independent authority of the CCI to investigate anti‑competitive practices in regulated sectors. It was directed that the CCI s based on the report received from DG, should provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders and aggrieved parties, accompanied by a reasonable opportunity to file their replies and written submissions.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
