A few days ago Ashok Chawla, Chairman of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) whose four-year term ended on Thursday, made a modest assessment of his legacy. "The structure of the house is ready," he told this newspaper, but it needed paint, polish, and furniture to make it vibrant. Building the "house", though, is no small achievement given the general languor that preceded Mr Chawla's stint as head of an institution that was set up to replace the anachronistic Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC). The CCI became officially functional in 2009, an event that was scarcely noted by trade and industry but feted by economists and policy analysts as a potential game changer.
In Mr Chawla's tenure, since October 2011, the competition regulator has gathered energy - making its presence felt in industries as diverse as cement, information technology-enabled services, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and real estate. To be sure, a good part of the credit must also go to the government for its non-interference, no small feat given its still dominant role in the political economy and the high stakes involved in mergers and acquisition. Even so, it is to Mr Chawla's credit that the criticisms levelled against the CCI mostly concern procedures, which are perhaps to be expected in a nascent regulatory environment. CCI has also displayed responsiveness to its shortcomings by regularly adjusting its rules to accommodate legitimate complaints. Accusations of inordinate delays and malfeasance are also notably absent; a feat few other sector regulators can boast of - though perhaps it is too early to tell whether these qualities are institutionally embedded.
If the CCI under Mr Chawla can claim concrete achievement, it is in some landmark consumer-facing judgements. Its January 2013 judgement against realtor DLF on a complaint by apartment buyers established a new template in agreements between real estate companies and consumers. Indeed, in its practice of initiating investigations into price-fixing by onion traders, domestic airlines, cooking gas distributors and even Google - not all of them successful, it must be said - it has managed to establish itself as a relatively conscientious and credible protector of consumer interests. The real challenges going forward lie in streamlining processes to reduce the time CCI takes to clear merger filings. Initially, it took 29 days, but the rising number of applications had seen that time period rise to 55 days, though Mr Chawla says the institution has started working towards reducing the delays. Equally, it needs to align its regulatory procedures more closely with the legal architecture of the judicial system. Mr Chawla has said he wanted CCI to be seen as a regulator moving with the times rather than applying "19th- and 20th century tools". Mr Chawla is right to worry about being seen as a hurdle to doing business. However, this decision may lie at the root of several decisions being overturned by the Competition Appellate Tribunal - most notably in the cases of the Board of Cricket Control of India and of a chemists' and druggists' association. Finding that balance is, perhaps, the "polish" and "paint" that his successor will have to apply.
