Subhomoy Bhattacharjee (Professor of Practice & Director at CRG, JGLS)


The Supreme Court of India on May 27, 2026, set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that penalised Amazon for ₹202 crore for completing its acquisition of a 49 per cent stake in Future Coupons Ltd, a promoter group entity within the Future Group. What is striking about the judgement, though, is that the apex court took the opportunity to write a primer of sorts on the role of India’s regulators. In doing so, it may have set a de-facto regulatory agenda for the Indian economy, with the central question being whether Indian regulators are entrusted in any manner with a national economic agenda.


Specifically, the top court advised Indian regulators to regulate keeping in mind the global economic climate. The court observed that in an era where trade and investment flows are often influenced by tariffs, counter-tariffs, supply-chain realignments, and heightened geopolitical and market uncertainty, India’s economic regulators should not become additional sources of risk. “Regulatory discretion that appears arbitrary, opaque, or inconsistent raises the cost of doing business in India and undermines investor confidence. Conversely, a regulatory framework anchored in legality, transparency, and accountability lowers the risk premium attached to investment and strengthens trust in Indian markets,” the SC said.


The SC did not stop at that, going ahead with weaving foreign direct investment (FDI) into the context. Remarking that FDI is a channel through which capital, technology, managerial expertise, and efficiencies enter Indian markets, it is necessary for the Indian regulators to ensure a fair and predictive regulatory environment that promotes such investment “as a means of serving national interest”.


It has been more than a decade since the Court waded into a regulatory issue in such detail. That was in 2013, when the Supreme Court made observations on what is known as the 2GTelecom case.


The Court’s observations this time come shortly after the Economic Survey 2025-26 focussed on the need for regulatory reform to boost ease of doing business in India, especially in the context of foreign investment. In the Union Budget 2025 for financial year 2025-26, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had decided to set up a high-powered committee to examine regulatory issues.


“Although specifically speaking for the CCI, the Supreme Court’s opinion would have ramifications for all of India’s economic regulators, especially those that affects “rights and commercial outcomes” for the Indian economy,” said Avirup Bose, professor (Competition Law and Policy), Jindal Global Law School. "Economic regulators like the CCI are not just punitive institutions, but are also burdened with a statutory mandate to create a stable and credible regulatory framework for promoting predictability and fairness to incentivise and sustain economic entrepreneurship."


The top court's observations are not without reason. Of the 500,000 cases pending in various tribunals in India, a third are being pursued by regulators, as per the National Judicial DataGrid. The Amazon case itself went through several opposing positions before landing in the Supreme Court.


Industry bodies like the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) were reluctant to speak on these issues, for obvious reasons. But a CII 'Ease of Doing Business and Regulatory Initiaive' portal notes that the Companies Act, SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015, the Competition Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are key areas of Indian industry's concern with regulatory overload. It notes that “CII has represented industry’s concerns and engaged in constructive dialogue with the government and the regulators for the creation of a conducive regulatory environment for industry’s growth.”


Bose adds that, possibly for the first time, India’s top court's message for all of India’s economic regulators is clear: Regulatory certainty is a strategic economic asset for the economic future. Regulators must be able to protect Indian markets without undermining the predictability on which such markets depend. In no unclear terms, the Supreme Court has noted that it is the responsibility of Indian regulators to ensure that “India remains a credible jurisdiction for lawful investment and enterprise in an increasingly contested global economic environment.”


Besides its observations on their role, the Supreme Court also provided a four-point agenda of how India’s economic regulators should behave. First, regulators, while promoting the Indian economy, should not re-invent their respective regulatory jurisdictions. Second, they must ensure procedural fairness to promote confidence of investors in the Indian economy. Third, regulators must ensure reasoned and fair decision-making, reflecting the larger regulatory agenda for India, while safeguarding against arbitrariness. And finally, India’s economic regulators wield powers that can significantly affect investment decisions, market structure, and business confidence and, therefore, the exercise of those powers must be calibrated to the gravity of the violation and anchored firmly in the statutory framework.


Ashok Chawla, former chairman of the CCI said: “The issue that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court is extremely relevant in today's competitive global environment. Regulators have a vital role in ensuring that the operating architecture is fair, non- discriminatory and predictable.”


As an industry expert, requesting anonymity, remarked: “Cross-border investments cannot be subjected to frequent changes as the weather changes. In this regard it is crucial that the practice of frequently tinkering with rules and regulations should be strongly discouraged." The court strictures are along almost the same lines of the European Union’s “The Draghi Report on European Competitiveness” of 2025 that called for a recalibration of European Union’s regulations and regulatory vision to empower commercialisation, scaling-up, and innovation efforts of European companies to effectively compete with those of the United States (US) and China.


The Draghi Report had specifically urged reorientation of EU’s competition policy, especially in the context of mergers and acquisitions to prioritise long-term global competitiveness and innovation for European firms. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court’s opinion states that Indian competition policy should be burdened with the responsibility of creating a “a predictable and fair regulatory system” that encourages entry of foreign capital, enabling scaling of Indian enterprises besides incubating opportunities of innovation. The Indian apex court has effectively laid down a regulatory agenda, where in its words, “India remains a credible jurisdiction for lawful investment and enterprise in an increasingly contested global economic environment”.


Chawla added that while statutory regulators should follow this dharma, “the Sovereign has an even more critical role. The overall environment and the tax regime specifically should not be such as tends to make global capital and technology sceptical of the Indian ecosystem”.


The Supreme Court remarked that in an era marked by geopolitical fragmentation, supply-chain realignments, and heightened economic uncertainty, India's credibility as an investment destination will depend as much on the quality of its institutions as on the size of its market. By reaffirming that regulatory power must be exercised within the bounds of law, Bose pointed out, the Court has possibly helped to shape a regulatory culture that advances competition, protects consumers, and strengthens India's standing as a trusted jurisdiction for enterprise and investment. 


(These are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of OP Jindal Global University or its affiliated institutions).