The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on a petition filed by the Basketball Federation of India (BFI), challenging an order directing an investigation into alleged abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive practices.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued notice on the petition as well as the BFI’s application seeking a stay on the CCI’s probe order dated November 25, 2025, and listed the matter for hearing on March 10.
The CCI had initiated action against the BFI on the basis of a complaint filed by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited (EPBL), which alleged that the Federation denied market access and restrained players from participating in unaffiliated tournaments. The CCI took cognisance of the “information” provided by EPBL, dated March 11, 2024, on August 21, 2025, and found a prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, directing the Director General to conduct an investigation.
According to the Federation’s petition, EPBL had expressed interest in becoming the organising partner of a professional basketball league in 2022, but failed to submit a roadmap or take part in the tender process. Consequently, the BFI stated it was compelled to identify another organising partner through a competitive process.
Appearing for the Federation, senior advocate Vaibhav Gaggar argued that the BFI is a recognised national sports federation and functions as a regulator, not a market player. He asserted that “a regulator cannot be regulated,” and contended that the CCI overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering a probe into a matter rooted in regulatory policy, not commercial activity.
The petition maintained that issuing cautions to players about unrecognised competitions was a policy matter, not an anti-competitive act. It stated:
“Warning players against participation in unrecognised leagues is a regulatory and a policy decision and does not amount to anti-competitive exclusive distribution agreement or restraint on services of players amounting to abuse of dominance.”
BFI also submitted that selecting organising partners through a transparent bidding process for league operations was a policy matter to promote the sport and not a commercial decision attracting the Competition Act.
The petitioner also urged the court to stay the operation of the CCI’s investigation order, citing “global ramifications” if such regulatory powers were brought under the lens of anti-competition laws.
The matter will now be taken up on March 10 for further consideration.
