CMS Expert Guide to Competition Compliance Programmes in India

India’s national competition authority (“Indian NCA”) i.e., the Competition Commission of India, is the nodal agency responsible for enforcing the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) and promoting competition across markets in India. The Indian NCA plays an active role in encouraging a culture of compliance and since its inception has issued non-binding guidance booklets (updated from time to time) for enterprises to support the development of effective internal competition compliance programmes (“CCPs”).

The Indian NCA outlines several broad elements that contribute to an effective CCP, while recognising that such programmes must be tailored to the size, structure, and risk profile of each business. Fundamentally, the Indian NCA stresses the importance of visible and demonstrable commitment from senior management in establishing and upholding a culture of compliance throughout the organisation.

The Indian NCA also encourages a risk-based approach to CCPs. Businesses are expected to proactively identify areas of heightened competition law exposure—particularly in roles or functions where commercially-sensitive decisions are made—and implement internal safeguards accordingly. This includes adopting preventive measures, establishing internal reporting protocols, and ensuring effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms are in place.

Regular training and awareness efforts form another important pillar. The Indian NCA recommends that businesses ensure employees are aware of the key requirements under the Act and are equipped to identify and avoid potentially anti-competitive conduct.

The Indian NCA has on numerous occasions, considered the existence and quality of CCPs in its penalty assessments, although the extent of mitigation has not always been expressly quantified. These cases (as set out below) collectively demonstrate that while the Indian NCA recognises CCPs as a relevant factor in enforcement decisions, it places critical emphasis on genuine pre-existing implementation, demonstrable effectiveness, and active senior management involvement. Merely maintaining compliance documentation or adopting a CCP post-contravention is generally insufficient to secure mitigation or penalty reduction.

• Existence of CCPs Recognized as a Mitigating Factor: In Ref. Case No. 05 of 2013 and Case Nos. 36 and 82 of 2014, the Indian NCA acknowledged the existence of a CCP as a mitigating factor. However, these orders did not elaborate on the extent of the CCP’s role in penalty reduction.
• Timing and Effectiveness of CCPs: In Suo Motu Case No. 02 of 2013, the Indian NCA clarified that a CCP already in place at the time of infringement may be considered a mitigating factor. Conversely, CCPs implemented only after the violation are not eligible for consideration as mitigation. This distinction highlights the importance of genuine, proactive compliance efforts.
• Directives to implement Compliance Programmes: In a more recent case, Case No. 38 of 2021, the Indian NCA not only penalised the Federation of Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Association in India (“FPBAI”) and its office-bearers for collusive practices, but also expressly directed FPBAI to conduct periodic competition compliance and awareness programmes across its state/regional associations — indicating an affirmative push towards structured CCP adoption.

The primary purpose of designing CCPs is to help companies proactively identify, prevent, and address potential violations of competition law, mitigating both legal and reputational risks. The Indian NCA has encouraged the adoption of CCPs to ensure organizational compliance with the Act with a purview to integrate compliance duties into management’s responsibilities, ensuring a sustained commitment across all levels.

The evaluation of a company’s CCP considers both the efforts invested and the tangible results achieved. Each case is considered in its own context, with a balanced approach of an effort-based assessment and quality of implementation. Indian NCA evaluates whether a sturdy CCP genuinely improved compliance or was implemented only superficially which acts as a mitigating factor in investigations (as also detailed in response to Question 2 above).

The focus in India is ensuring the robustness and adaptation of existing CCPs with the dynamic market and regulatory environments. Companies are encouraged to periodically review and refine their CCPs to incorporate and mitigate newly identifies risks.

The Indian NCA has assessed the role of both management and employees in CCPs as an integral assessment through the interconnected lenses of prevention, detection, reporting and remediation.

This assessment spans multiple dimensions including clear and demonstrable endorsement of the CCP by senior management including personal statements to staff, integrating CCPs into the enterprises’ ‘Mission Statement’ or ‘Code of Conduct’, linking compliance policy with human resource policies, and appointing a senior-level compliance officer. Further, the Indian NCA also expects employees’ participation through training and awareness, operational compliance as well as cooperation in investigation.

The Indian NCA now explicitly recognizes a well-implemented CCP as a mitigating factor when determining penalties for infringements of competition law. This position is formalized in the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Monetary Penalty) Guidelines, 2024 (“Penalty Guidelines”), which includes the implementation of a CCP within the enterprise among the relevant factors that may warrant a reduction of a fine. While the Penalty Guidelines do not assign specific weight to individual factors, the formal recognition of CCPs as a relevant consideration marks a significant shift towards international best practices. It also enhances the incentive for enterprises to proactively invest in vigorous internal compliance frameworks.

Even prior to the issuance of the Penalty Guidelines, the Indian NCA acknowledged CCPs in a few cases (as mentioned in response to Question 2 above). However, these decisions did not clarify the extent (in terms of quantum/percentage) to which the CCPs influenced the final penalty (and any possible reduction).

In summary, penalty reduction remains discretionary and fact-specific, with no prescribed maximum specifically attributable to CCPs.

India’s public procurement regulations do not explicitly recognize CCPs as evidence for self-cleaning measures. The rules governing Indian procurement system, lacks comprehensive provisions for suppliers to demonstrate rehabilitation after competition law violations. Accordingly, there aren’t precedents available to demonstrate that self-cleaning provisions/implementation of CCPs were considered as evidence of organizational rehabilitation.

However, purely from a competition law perspective, collusive behaviour is prohibited under the Act which sets out the provision for anti-competitive agreements. In fact, the Indian NCA has also issued diagnostic toolkit for public procurement officers to detect collusive behaviour and consider filing complaint before the Indian NCA for appropriate proceedings. In such a situation, for complaints involving collusive behaviour (including for public procurement), the Indian NCA may consider existence of CCPs as a mitigating factor while imposing penalties on the enterprises found guilty of colluding.

The Penalty Guidelines as well as the regulations on leniency (known as lesser penalty regulations) recognize the following:

• penalty adjustment factors include competition compliance program implementation; and
• existing and effective compliance programs serve as mitigating factors for competition law violations.

To the best of our knowledge, no new developments are expected at this point in time (apart from those already set out in response to Questions 5 and 7 above).