Published Online:January 2026
Product Name:The IUP Journal of Law Review
Product Type:Article
Product Code:IUPLR030126
DOI:10.71329/IUPLR/2026.16.1.35-52
Author Name:Harshwardhan Singh Gupta, Jiya Bhadani and Akanksha Garg Agrawal
Availability:YES
Subject/Domain:Law
Download Format:PDF
Pages:35-52
The growing reach of arbitration in commercial practice and the assertiveness of India’s competition regime have raised the question whether an arbitration clause can limit, influence or override the Competition Commission of India’s statutory authority. This paper examines how overlapping non obstante clauses in the statutory structure of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Competition Act, 2002 and the absence of an express coordination mechanism, and the contrasting purposes of the two Acts create uncertainty.1 The paper also examines whether disputes that originate in private contracts but raise concerns under Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act can be resolved through an arbitration mechanism, or whether these matters must remain within the CCI’s public-law remit.2 These questions are often framed as in rem versus in personam distinctions. The paper reflects on whether a coexistence between arbitration and competition law is both possible and desirable and recommends a balanced approach.
Today, commercial contracts almost invariably include arbitration clauses, which reflect the parties’ interest in resolving disputes privately through arbitration rather than in open courts. Indian competition law establishes the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as the exclusive authority to enforce the Competition Act’s antitrust and anticompetitive provisions.3