Today, on 9th February, the Delhi High Court sought CCI’s response to BFI’s plea challenging an anti-competition probe, issuing notice and fixing March 10 for hearing. The court will also consider BFI’s request to stay proceedings, citing global implications.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court sought the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) response to a petition from the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) challenging the CCI’s investigation into alleged anti-competitive behavior.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued a notice to the CCI, scheduling the matter for a hearing on March 10. The BFI’s interim request to stay the proceedings will also be considered at that time.
Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar represented the BFI, arguing that CCI proceedings have global implications. He asserted that the BFI, as the governing body for basketball in India, should not be subjected to an investigation for its regulatory actions.
ALSO READ: Meta & WhatsApp vs CCI: Supreme Court Postpones Hearing to Feb 23
On November 25, 2025, the CCI initiated a detailed antitrust investigation against the BFI for alleged abuse of dominance and anti-competitive behavior in violation of the Competition Act, 2002.
This investigation was initiated following a complaint from Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited (EPBL), which claimed that the BFI consistently denied approvals for its proposed professional leagues, including the Elite Pro Basketball League (EPBL) and Elite Pro 3×3 League, while imposing restrictions on players, referees, and coaches from participating in non-BFI-sanctioned events.
The CCI determined there was a prima facie case indicating that the BFI’s actions limited market access and amounted to a refusal to deal, prompting it to direct the Director General to conduct further investigations.
In response, the BFI filed the current petition in the High Court, contending that the CCI’s order contradicts its own established practices and judicial precedents, which maintain that regulatory actions fall outside its jurisdiction.
According to the petition,
“Even if certain acts have incidental economic nature while the Petitioner-like body is performing its predominant coded regulatory duties, the same does not extinguish the regulatory character of the Petitioner and attract the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002.”
The BFI emphasized that the CCI cannot function as a super-regulator over specialized statutory bodies. It also mentioned that while the complainant, EPBL, initially expressed interest in becoming the organizing partner for the professional basketball league and participated in the tender process, it later failed to provide the requested roadmap or engage in the process. Instead, EPBL approached the CCI, alleging market access denial and constraints on players.
Alongside Senior Advocate Gaggar, advocates Pareksheet Bishnoi, Abhishek Grover, and Abhishek Nair represented the BFI.