Expert should head panel on competition: Govt

Presence of mere experts not sufficient, says Supreme Court

The Centre today contended before the Supreme Court that the chairman of the proposed Competition Commission of India (CCI) should be "an expert and not a judge".

It said that insisting on a judge to head the body would have far-reaching implications, as it would affect the composition of other regulatory bodies like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi). The world over, such panels were considered expert bodies. Any judge on such a panel was an expert in his field.

Posting the case on November 2 for final hearing, the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice RC Lahoti asked the Centre's counsel whether the CCI was a judicial, adjudicatory or expert body, and whether it was amenable to the high court.

The counsel said it was a regulatory body to control the market. Though there would be a judicial member in the CCI, his role was that of an expert as in Trai and Sebi.

The bench asked whether the CCI could do without a judge since his presence was immaterial. The counsel replied that according to the rules, the judge was a member of the commission. The court observed that since the CCI performed adjudicatory functions, it could not be left to the experts alone.

A petition raising similar questions about the law has been filed by the Madras Bar Association in the high court in Chennai. The bar association counsel wanted the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court. The court did not pass any order on this request.

The person who was appointed the chairman of the commission last year has also moved a petition, on which the court did not pass any order in view of the full hearing next Tuesday.

Earlier, taking up the petition by Brahm Dutt, the Supreme Court had made strong observations on the secondary role given to the judicial member. Dutt's counsel today said the law was unconstitutional, one of the reasons being that the CCI's orders would be enforced by the concerned high court.

The government filed its affidavit after the apex court pointed out anomalies in the law. The Centre reiterated its stand on the crucial issues. After insisting on an expert to head the CCI, the government said its strength should be limited to six members and the chairman.

It also suggested that the members be chosen by a selection committee headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a high court. The chief of the selection committee would be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. There shall be an appellate tribunal to hear appeals on the CCI's orders. It shall have a chairman and two members.

The government also proposed to delete Section 30 of the Act, under which the CCI's orders would be enforced by the high courts. The amendment would make the civil court the enforcing authority.

Competition matters

---

• Centre tells the Supreme Court that an expert, not a judge, should head the Competition Commission
• Says that insisting on a judge to head the panel would affect the composition of other regulators like Trai and Sebi
• The competition panel would replace the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
• The apex court had objected to the secondary role of the judge on the Competition Commission