CORPORATE AFFAIRS MINISTER SALMAN KHURSHID:
I move that the Bill to amend the Competition Act, 2002, as passed by the Lok Sabha, be taken into consideration.
The Ordinance had to be passed for the simple reason that the two-year sunset clause provided for winding up of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) had to be fast-forwarded, simply because the personnel were not available to us any more. There was no chairperson. We have made attempts to find an appropriate chairperson, but the very person that we selected was also selected for another tribunal.
Two of the members retired during this period. As a result, MRTPC had to complete its work over a two-year period after which the left-over work was to be handed over to the Competition Appellate Tribunal. We felt, instead of making things inconvenient for all the people before MRTPC, as plaintiff or otherwise, should be shifted immediately. And, therefore, the Ordinance…
OPPOSITION MP ARUN JAITLEY:
I am just intervening because I have one or two serious doubts so far as this amendment is concerned.
Sir, the original Competition Bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament in 2002. It provided for a certain set of cases, as distinct from what was pending before MRTPC. The law was first enacted in the 1940s and then in the 1970s in a restricted environment.
The whole concept was that you must have a regulation, anything that is big is evil, small is beautiful, economies of scale were to be frowned upon, etc. With the passage of time and, particularly, after 1991 it became redundant.
The Competition Commission had to be created as a market regulator.
After this was passed by both the Houses, the real objection came from the judicial institution: Why must you have a person who is not a judge heading this body? As a result of this, a challenge was made. The rules under this Act were framed and for years the Competition Commission could not function.
Thereafter, the government represented through the attorney general. The government before 2003-04 and the government in 2005-06 prepared draft amendments saying: “All right, above this commission, we will create an appellate tribunal. We will subsume one of the retired judges to head the tribunal.”
So, a job was created for a retired judge. Once it was done, the Supreme Court also gave its nod. The litigation came to an end and this post was created as an appellate tribunal.
Now, what is the situation? You have an appellate tribunal headed by a retired judge. The retired judge has no function because there is no case pending before him and what the minister has said is that the court pushed us to a situation where we had to create this position. Now, the judge has no function; we have to take work from other tribunals and create job for him. Is this what Parliament is supposed to do?
The government first brought the changes in the law, saying, as far as the restrictive trade practices are concerned, they are before MRTPC. MRTPC, which has a full investigative wing, is to be wound up and its investigative wing could shift to the Competition Commission. The same people will be used and those who are not required would have to go out.
Unfair trade practices were sent to the National Consumer Forum. The forum said, and rightly so: “I have no investigative wing. I can’t deal with it. Let it go back.” While it is to go back to MRTPC and if MRTPC is not available, it has to come back to Competition Commission.
So, first we create a post of a retired judge and now amend the law in order to give work to that retired judge. In the process, we structured the law to make it look so absurd, if I may use that phrase, where restrictive trade practices would be before the Competition Commission and unfair trade practices will be before the appellate authority.
(Excerpt from debate on Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2009, in the Rajya Sabha on December 16)
