Procedure for inquiry under section 19
Section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002 deals with procedure for inquiry under section 19. On receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority or on its own knowledge or information received under section 19, if the Commission is of the opinion that there exists a prima facie case, it shall direct the Director General to cause an investigat The Act came into force on 31 Mar 2003.
1[26. Procedure for inquiry under section 19.--(1) On receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority or on its own knowledge or information received under section 19, if the Commission is of the opinion that there exists a prima facie case, it shall direct the Director General to cause an investigation to be made into the matter:
Provided that if the subject matter of an information received is, in the opinion of the Commission, substantially the same as or has been covered by any previous information received, then the new information may be clubbed with the previous information.
(2) Where on receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority or information received under section 19, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, it shall close the matter forthwith and pass such orders as it deems fit and send a copy of its order to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be.
2[(2A) The Commission may not inquire into agreement referred to in section 3 or conduct of an enterprise or group under section 4, if the same or substantially the same facts and issues raised in the information received under section 19 or reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority has already been decided by the Commission in its previous order.]
(3) The Director General shall, on receipt of direction under sub-section (1), submit a report on his findings within such period as may be specified by the Commission.
2[(3A) If, after consideration of the report of the Director General referred to in sub-section (3), the Commission is of the opinion that further investigation is required, it may direct the Director General to investigate further into the matter.
(3B) The Director General shall, on receipt of direction under sub-section (3A), investigate the matter and submit a supplementary report on his findings within such period as may be specified by the Commission.]
(4) The Commission may forward a copy of the report referred to in 3[sub-section (3) and (3B)] to the parties concerned:
Provided that in case the investigation is caused to be made based on reference received from the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority, the Commission shall forward a copy of the report referred to in 3[sub-section (3) and (3B)] to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority, as the case may be.
(5) If the report of the Director General referred to in 3[sub-section (3) and (3B)] recommends that there is no contravention of the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall invite objections or suggestions from the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be, on such report of the Director General.
(6) If, after consideration of the objections or suggestions referred to in sub-section (5), if any, the Commission agrees with the recommendation of the Director General, it shall close the matter forthwith and pass such orders as it deems fit and communicate its order to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be.
(7) If, after consideration of the objections or suggestions referred to in sub-section (5), if any, the Commission is of the opinion that further investigation is called for, it may direct further investigation in the matter by the Director General or cause further inquiry to be made in the matter or itself proceed with further inquiry in the matter in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(8) If the report of the Director General referred to in 3[sub-section (3) and (3B)] recommends that there is contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, and the Commission is of the opinion that further inquiry is called for, it shall inquire into such contravention in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]
4[(9) Upon completion of the investigation or inquiry under sub-section (7) or sub-section (8), as the case may be, the Commission may pass an order closing the matter or pass an order under section 27, and send a copy of its order to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be:
Provided that before passing such order, the Commission shall issue a show-cause notice indicating the contraventions alleged to have been committed and such other details as may be specified by regulations and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.]
Section 26, The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
CCI is an expert body. Director General investigation under s.26, inquiry under s.19, and CCI's duties under s.18 are part of a specialised scheme; s.61 excludes civil-court jurisdiction over the same subject. COMPAT's interference with a CCI direction to investigate was set aside. Single labelled Judgment of Main Case (order-1.pdf, 2010-09-09).
On this section: DG investigation procedure under s.26 is a specialised step; the Court restored CCI's direction to investigate SAIL.
-
B. Himmatlal Agrawal Partner vs Competent Commission of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with a condition attached to an interim stay order. While the stay can be vacated for non-compliance of the deposit condition, the statutory right to appeal under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002, cannot be taken away by imposing a condition of deposit as a prerequisite to entertaining the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 53B(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction to impose conditions that effectively bar the hearing of an appeal.
On this section: Applied by CCI to direct the Director General to conduct inquiry; provides CCI's power to order investigation
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The Authority, like the Commission and/or Director General, has no power to deal and decide the stated breaches including of "delay, "denial", and "congestion" of POIs unless settled finally by the Authorities/TDSAT under the TRAI Act. Therefore, there is no question to initiate any inquiry and investigations under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act. It is without jurisdiction. Even at the time of passing of final order, the Commission and the Authority, will not be in a position to deal with the contractual terms and conditions and/or any breaches, if any. The uncleared and vague information are not sufficient to initiate inquiry …
-
… The Authority, like the Commission and/or Director General, has no power to deal and decide the stated breaches including of "delay, "denial", and "congestion" of POIs unless settled finally by the Authorities/TDSAT under the TRAI Act. Therefore, there is no question to initiate any inquiry and investigations under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act. It is without jurisdiction. Even at the time of passing of final order, the Commission and the Authority, will not be in a position to deal with the contractual terms and conditions and/or any breaches, if any. The uncleared and vague information are not sufficient to initiate inquiry …
-
… The Authority, like the Commission and/or Director General, has no power to deal and decide the stated breaches including of "delay, "denial", and "congestion" of POIs unless settled finally by the Authorities/TDSAT under the TRAI Act. Therefore, there is no question to initiate any inquiry and investigations under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act. It is without jurisdiction. Even at the time of passing of final order, the Commission and the Authority, will not be in a position to deal with the contractual terms and conditions and/or any breaches, if any. The uncleared and vague information are not sufficient to initiate inquiry …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 26
What have the courts held on Section 26 of the Competition Act?
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (09 Sep 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: DG investigation procedure under s.26 is a specialised step; the Court restored CCI's direction to investigate SAIL. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 26 of the Competition Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Competition Act 26, section 26 Competition Act, section 26 of the Competition Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (09 Sep 2010).
What should I read with Section 26 of the Competition Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Anti-competitive agreements), section 4 (Abuse of dominant position), section 19 (Inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise), section 27 (Orders by Commission after inquiry into agreements or abuse of dominant position), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 (No 2 of 2009) (2009).
When did Section 26 of the Competition Act come into force?
Section 26 of the Competition Act, cited as Competition Act 26, came into force on 31 Mar 2003, having been enacted on 13 Jan 2003. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 66. Repeal and saving1683 words
- 2. Definitions1390 words
- 5. Combination1317 words
- 6. Regulation of combinations920 words
- 3. Anti-competitive agreements850 words
- 63. Power to make rules776 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.