Competition Law and Dubbed Content: Supreme Court Rules in CCI vs. West Bengal Film and Television Committee

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Competition Commission of India vs. Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of W.B. Film and Television & Ors.. The ruling clarified the powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in addressing anti-competitive practices and the extent to which industry bodies can restrict market entry.

Background of the Case

The case arose when M/s Hart Video, a distributor of TV serials, acquired the rights to dub the Hindi television series ‘Mahabharat’ into Bangla and broadcast it on Channel 10 and CTVN+ Channel. The Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of W.B. Film and Television and the Eastern India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA) objected, arguing that dubbed content threatened the local film and television industry.

The Coordination Committee issued letters to television networks, demanding that they cease broadcasting the dubbed serial. The committee argued that allowing dubbed serials from other languages would harm local productions and employment opportunities. Following this pressure, the channels halted the telecast.

As a result, the distributor approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI), alleging that the actions of the Coordination Committee and EIMPA were anti-competitive and in violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Legal Issues

• Did the actions of the Coordination Committee and EIMPA constitute an anti-competitive agreement under Section 3 of the Competition Act?
• Was restricting the broadcast of dubbed content an attempt to foreclose competition in the relevant market?
• Could a trade union or industry body be held liable under the Competition Act for restricting market access?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Competition Commission of India)

The CCI argued that:

• The Coordination Committee and EIMPA engaged in an agreement that limited market competition by restricting the entry of dubbed content.
• Their actions amounted to a collective decision to restrict trade, which falls within the scope of Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, which prohibits agreements that limit or control production, supply, or markets.
• The restriction on dubbed content was not based on consumer preference but was an attempt to limit market access.

Respondents’ Arguments (Coordination Committee and EIMPA)

The respondents argued:

• Their actions were meant to protect the interests of local artists and technicians, not to restrict competition.
• The decision to oppose dubbed content was a collective industry stance, not an anti-competitive agreement.
• Their actions fell within the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, allowing freedom of expression and association.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CCI and held that:

• The restriction imposed by the Coordination Committee and EIMPA amounted to an anti-competitive agreement that limited consumer choice.
• By preventing the telecast of dubbed content, the respondents created an entry barrier, which foreclosed competition in the market.
• The argument that the Coordination Committee was merely a trade union did not hold, as it acted in a coordinated manner to limit supply and access in the relevant market.
• The actions of the respondents directly contravened Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, which prohibits agreements that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

“The protectionist approach in the name of language goes against the interest of competition, depriving the consumers of exercising their choice,” the Court stated.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Industry associations and trade unions cannot engage in restrictive trade practices that prevent fair competition.
• Restricting dubbed content on the grounds of protecting local industry violates the Competition Act.
• Consumer choice is a critical factor in competition law, and actions that limit it will be viewed as anti-competitive.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reaffirms that industry bodies cannot collude to restrict market access under the guise of protecting local interests. By striking down the restriction on dubbed content, the judgment strengthens the role of the Competition Commission of India in ensuring a fair and competitive marketplace.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Competition Commissi vs Co-ordination Commit Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-03-2017.pdf