Apple relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Excel Crop Care case which interpreted turnover as “relevant turnover” and held that the doctrine of proportionality is protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
| Photo Credit:
REUTERS/Dado Ruvic
iPhone maker Apple Inc has challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of India’s anti-trust law that link penalties on the violator entities to their global turnover.
The arguments have been advanced in a writ petition filed by the company before the Delhi High Court. It will be heard by the court on December 3.
Apple Inc has argued that specific provisions of the Competition Act that allow the regulator to calculate penalties on the basis of global turnover of a violating entity are violative of fundamental rights to equality and, life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Notably, global precedents in the UK and European Union’s landmark anti-trust regulations take into account a violator company’s global as well as “relevant” turnover, a reference to revenue derived from the sale of the specific goods or services that were the subject of the anti-competitive infringement within the specific geographic market.
But Apple has urged the court to strike down the amended Section 27(b) of the Competition Act which added two explanations. Explanation (1) clarifies that the calculation of “turnover” and “income” for penalty purposes will be determined by the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Turnover or Income) Regulations, 2024. And Explanation (2) defines “turnover” as “global turnover” derived from all products and services, expanding the basis for penalties to include worldwide revenue.
“Declare that the Explanation (1) and (2) to the Amended Section 27(b) of the Competition Act, the Penalty Guidelines and the Turnover Regulations are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and hence ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal in so far as it empowers the Respondent Commission to consider the “global turnover” derived from all products and services for imposing penalty under the Competition Act,” Apple said.
The petition, a copy of which has been accessed by businessline, also asked for quashing of certain portions of the ‘confidentiality ring’ order by the CCI which directed the company to submit interlinked financial statements. “Quash paragraph 18 of the Confidentiality Ring Order dated 03.03.2025, which directs the Petitioners to submit the Interlinked Financial Statements, as the Respondent Commission’s direction to furnish the Interlinked Financial Statements in terms of the Turnover Regulations and Penalty Guidelines is non-est in law, and submission of the same would render the Writ Petition infructuous,” said the petition.
The ‘confidentiality ring’ concept was introduced by the CCI in April, 2022 to provide comfort to the corporates sharing commercial information with the competition watchdog. A confidentiality ring allows parties access to confidential information and documents of other parties during an investigation to defend themselves effectively.
Apple simultaneously wants the quash Guideline 3(7) and Guideline 8(1) of the CCI’s Penalty Guidelines as arbitrary, contrary to and ultra vires of the Competition Act. Guideline 3(7) states: “If, in view of the Commission, the amount of penalty so determined is not sufficient to create deterrence, the Commission may, further increase the amount of penalty, subject to the legal maximum.” Guideline 8(1) states: “Notwithstanding the general methodology for determining the amount of penalty, considering the particularities of a given case and in exceptional circumstances, the Commission may divert from these guidelines.”
The company also wants the court to stay the ongoing proceedings in the CCI during the pendency of the writ petition.
Apple relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Excel Crop Care case which interpreted turnover as “relevant turnover” and held that the doctrine of proportionality is protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The company argued that the amended penalty provisions in the law now arbitrarily take into consideration the global turnover of an enterprise generated from territories outside the jurisdiction of the CCI instead of the turnover of an enterprise as generated in the relevant geographic market or in the Indian market where the alleged contravention has occurred.
“For instance, an enterprise which is engaged in the market for selling toys worth ₹100 is also engaged in the market for selling stationery for ₹20,000 and has contravened the provisions of the Competition Act in the market for toys only. In such a case, it would be arbitrary and disproportionate to levy a penalty on the enterprise basis the total turnover of ₹20,000 (for stationery) and ₹100 (for toys), when the contravention is only in relation to ₹100 (for toys),” the company argued in the writ petition.
Published on November 27, 2025
