But this is easier said than done mainly because the Commission doesn't have the necessary technical expertise to investigate monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices. That is perhaps why there are instances when it takes up altogether silly cases like the owl advertisement by SAS, or more recently, its direction to Doordarshan about Friday and Saturday night films. Another, more serious, example of the Commission's frailty is its treatment of mergers and acquisitions, which need not automatically be bad for consumers.
While amending the Act, however, it should be borne in mind that the amendments are not done piecemeal, whereby the government decides to amend one section, leaving the rest of the legislation intact. Given liberalisation, and the new demands it has placed on the market regulatory agencies, the entire statute needs a fresh look. Indeed, in this context, the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA) also needs to be taken into account.
COPRA was enacted in 1986 and in spite of complaints about its functioning, it has been quite successful in obtaining a better deal for consumers. True, there is some overlap between the two pieces of legislation as also various points of divergence. But on the whole both are concerned with the same generic issues. That is why the right approach is to harmonise the two sets of legislation and replace them with a new code which ensures the continuation of competition. Central to this is the need for a competition policy which, in some senses, is what the MRTP Act had aimed at.
Several other countries have explicit competition policies. They have realised that there is no automaticity about liberalisation leading to greater competition. Why should India be different?
