In an exclusive interaction with ETLegalWorld, Raghav Pandey, Director, Centre for Regulatory Studies, National Law University Delhi, highlighted the growing need for India’s competition law framework to evolve in step with its rapidly expanding digital economy. As sectors like e-commerce, fintech, and AI outpace traditional regulatory timelines, Pandey points out that prolonged antitrust litigation risks rendering enforcement ineffective. He advocates for a more proactive use of settlement and commitment mechanisms under the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, arguing that faster, outcome-oriented enforcement is key to ensuring regulatory certainty, sustaining investor confidence, and keeping pace with market realities.
ETLegalWorld: India’s digital economy is scaling rapidly, but so is regulatory oversight across sectors. In such an environment, how important is it to create frameworks that ensure compliance while also allowing innovation and entrepreneurship to thrive?
Raghav Pandey: India’s digital economy — powered by e-commerce, fintech, AI, and a thriving startup ecosystem — demands enforcement that moves at the speed of markets. Today, competition cases routinely stretch 5–7 years through CCI, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court, delivering remedies long after markets have transformed. Courts remain clogged, businesses operate under prolonged uncertainty, and justice delayed becomes justice denied.
There is a strong case for the CCI to make greater use of settlements and commitments as mainstream enforcement tools. The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 provides the statutory mandate. Globally, the UK CMA, European Commission, and Japan’s JFTC already deploy these mechanisms to secure behavioural remedies without protracted adversarial litigation. The UK CMA’s recent voluntary commitments from AWS and Microsoft on cloud egress fees and interoperability, finalised in March 2026, were obtained without a single court hearing.
Settlements deliver speed, certainty, proportionality, and judicial efficiency. They free courts for genuinely contested matters while sending immediate market signals that the CCI is an active, responsive regulator. The alternative — funnelling every enforcement action through years of adversarial litigation — clogs the judiciary, exhausts resources, and renders outcomes meaningless.
India’s ambition as a global innovation hub is better served by a regulator that can act with both rigour and timeliness. The statutory tools now exist; the open question is how actively the CCI chooses to use them.
ETLegalWorld: There is a growing view globally that consultative and settlement-led regulatory approaches can deliver faster outcomes than prolonged litigation. Do you think such mechanisms are becoming increasingly relevant for fast-moving sectors like technology and e-commerce?
Raghav Pandey: There is a clear global shift toward more consultative, settlement-led, and outcome-oriented regulatory models, particularly in sectors like technology and e-commerce where markets evolve extremely quickly. Traditional litigation-heavy approaches often struggle to keep pace with digital businesses because by the time a case moves through investigation, hearings, and appeals, the underlying market dynamics may already have changed significantly. In such sectors, delayed enforcement can reduce the practical effectiveness of regulatory intervention itself.
This is why several global competition authorities increasingly rely on settlements, consent decrees, commitments, and negotiated remedies. The European Commission, for example, uses commitment frameworks and settlement procedures to secure faster compliance and implement market corrections without years of litigation. Similarly, U.S. regulators frequently use consent-based mechanisms to achieve behavioural changes while conserving institutional resources. These approaches are not designed to dilute enforcement, but to make enforcement more agile and responsive.
For fast-moving sectors like technology and e-commerce, these mechanisms are becoming particularly relevant because digital markets operate on speed, scale, and constant innovation. A prolonged regulatory process can create uncertainty for companies, investors, and consumers alike. Settlement-led approaches allow regulators to secure immediate corrective actions, improve market conduct, and provide clarity to all stakeholders in a much shorter timeframe.
Importantly, such frameworks also help regulators allocate their limited resources more effectively. Instead of spending years litigating every matter regardless of scale or severity, authorities can focus greater attention on systemic competition harms such as abuse of dominance, anti-competitive vertical arrangements, or entrenched market structures. This creates a more balanced and efficient enforcement ecosystem.
As India’s digital economy matures, there is growing recognition that regulatory systems must evolve alongside markets. Faster resolution mechanisms, if supported by strong safeguards and transparency, can strengthen both enforcement credibility and market confidence. The goal is not softer regulation, but smarter regulation that delivers timely outcomes in sectors where timing itself is critical.
ETLegalWorld: For startups, MSMEs, and investors operating in the digital economy, how significant is regulatory certainty and time-bound resolution in driving confidence and long-term growth?
Raghav Pandey: Regulatory certainty and time-bound resolution are among the most important factors influencing investor confidence and long-term growth in the digital economy. Startups, MSMEs, and emerging technology businesses operate in highly competitive and rapidly changing environments where access to capital, speed of execution, and scalability are critical to survival. In such ecosystems, prolonged uncertainty arising from lengthy investigations or unresolved regulatory disputes can significantly affect business decisions.
For startups and MSMEs in particular, the cost of navigating extended legal and compliance processes can be disproportionately high. Unlike large incumbents, smaller firms often lack the financial and operational capacity to absorb years of litigation or regulatory ambiguity. Delayed outcomes can discourage expansion, delay fundraising, slow hiring, and even reduce the willingness of entrepreneurs to experiment with innovative business models. Over time, this can weaken competition itself by making markets more difficult for newer entrants to navigate.
From an investor perspective, predictability in regulation is a key component of market attractiveness. Investors typically seek environments where rules are transparent, enforcement processes are fair, and disputes can be resolved within reasonable timelines. When investigations stretch across multiple years and appellate forums, capital tends to become more cautious. This is particularly relevant in the digital sector, where valuations and growth trajectories depend heavily on future market confidence.
Time-bound and transparent resolution mechanisms help address these concerns by reducing regulatory overhang and creating clarity for businesses and investors alike. Mechanisms such as settlements or commitments can unlock capital that would otherwise remain tied up in prolonged disputes, allowing businesses to redirect resources toward innovation, expansion, and employment generation. They also provide faster market corrections, which ultimately benefits consumers and competition.
As India positions itself as a global destination for digital innovation and entrepreneurship, building a regulatory ecosystem that combines accountability with predictability will be critical. Strong enforcement remains essential, but equally important is ensuring that the process itself does not become a deterrent to growth, investment, and innovation.
ETLegalWorld: Several international markets have adopted more collaborative competition enforcement models that focus on quicker compliance and less adversarial outcomes. Could similar approaches help strengthen India’s ease of doing business and innovation ecosystem?
Raghav Pandey: Globally, settlement-oriented competition enforcement is better understood as a deliberate enforcement strategy than as a concession. Many established regulators have adopted it because, in the right cases, it can deliver outcomes more efficiently than contested litigation.
The European Commission, US DOJ, Brazil’s CADE, and South Africa’s Competition Commission all deploy commitments, consent orders, and negotiated settlements as frontline tools. They do so not because they lack enforcement teeth, but because they recognise that timely market correction matters more than prolonged courtroom battles. In fast-moving technology markets, a remedy delivered in months restores competitive balance; one delivered after years of litigation is often irrelevant.
These mechanisms benefit everyone. Regulators secure binding behavioural changes and preserve institutional resources for systemic violations. Businesses gain clarity, reduce compliance uncertainty, and avoid the reputational and financial drag of multi-year disputes. Consumers and markets benefit from faster corrective action that actually shapes outcomes while they still matter.
For India, making fuller use of this approach could strengthen ease of doing business, attract global technology investment, and signal regulatory maturity. It would give the CCI greater agility to address competition harms — without clogging courts or creating the prolonged uncertainty that chills innovation and delays investment.
This is not without its critics. Commentators have questioned the compressed 45-day windows for filing settlement and commitment applications, the breadth of the CCI’s discretion to use disclosed information against an applicant where no agreement is reached, and the undertakings requiring applicants to waive rights of appeal. These are real design concerns, and the framework’s credibility will depend on how transparently and consistently the CCI applies it.
Used well, a settlement-led approach need not weaken regulation; it can make enforcement more effective by delivering outcomes while they still matter, rather than orders passed years after markets have moved on. For a country building a major digital economy, that difference is significant.
ETLegalWorld: As digital markets evolve faster than traditional legal processes, how important is it for competition regulators to modernize enforcement tools and procedures to remain effective?
Raghav Pandey: The digital economy operates on speed, innovation, and constant market evolution. Consumer behaviour, technology models, and competitive dynamics often change far faster than traditional legal and regulatory timelines. In such an environment, prolonged investigations and multi-layered litigation can reduce the effectiveness of regulatory intervention itself. By the time a matter moves through the Competition Commission of India (CCI), appellate tribunals, and higher courts, the market may already have shifted significantly, making delayed remedies less meaningful in practice.
This is why there is growing importance attached globally to more agile, settlement-oriented enforcement frameworks. A structured settlement mechanism offers predictability, speed, and real-time corrective action — qualities that are especially important in digital markets. Such frameworks enable regulators to secure compliance faster, implement behavioural remedies earlier, and provide certainty to businesses, investors, and consumers without compromising regulatory oversight.
For India, adopting a more flexible and time-bound enforcement approach could strengthen both competition policy and economic growth. Long-drawn proceedings often immobilize capital, delay business decisions, and create uncertainty for startups, MSMEs, and investors operating in highly dynamic sectors. In contrast, faster resolution mechanisms unlock investment confidence and allow businesses to focus on innovation and expansion rather than extended legal disputes.
Importantly, embracing settlements does not mean weakening antitrust enforcement. On the contrary, it allows regulators to deliver outcomes more efficiently while preserving institutional resources for serious and systemic competition concerns. A modern competition regime must not only punish violations but also restore market balance swiftly and credibly.
If India aims to position itself as a stable, innovation-friendly digital economy, the CCI’s approach should evolve alongside market realities. In fast-moving sectors, timeliness is an important dimension of effective enforcement — though speed cannot come at the expense of due process, reasoned orders, or the rights of third parties affected by a settlement. A well-calibrated settlement framework, supported by transparency and safeguards, can help transform the CCI from being solely an adjudicatory body into a more agile regulator that promotes both compliance and market development.
Ultimately, the goal of regulatory modernization is not to make enforcement softer, but to make it more effective. In fast-moving digital markets, timely intervention is often the difference between preserving competition and reacting after market structures have already solidified.
ETLegalWorld: As India continues to attract global investment in digital commerce and technology, how can regulators strike the right balance between maintaining fair competition and ensuring that investigations or enforcement actions do not unintentionally slow innovation or market expansion?
Raghav Pandey: Striking the right balance between fair competition and innovation will be one of the defining regulatory challenges for India’s digital economy in the coming decade. As India attracts increasing global investment in technology, e-commerce, AI, fintech, and digital infrastructure, regulators will need to ensure that enforcement frameworks protect markets without unintentionally slowing economic momentum or discouraging entrepreneurship.
Maintaining fair competition is essential because digital markets can become highly concentrated very quickly due to network effects, scale advantages, and data-driven business models. Regulators therefore have an important responsibility to prevent anti-competitive practices, protect consumer welfare, and ensure that smaller players have a fair opportunity to compete. Effective oversight also strengthens public trust in digital markets and creates long-term market stability.
At the same time, regulators must recognize that prolonged investigations and highly adversarial processes can create unintended economic costs. Extended uncertainty may delay investment decisions, discourage innovation, and divert business resources toward litigation instead of growth. In rapidly evolving sectors, a delayed remedy may lose practical relevance because the market may already have changed significantly before a final decision is reached.
This is why modern enforcement increasingly emphasizes proportionality, speed, and flexibility. Time-bound investigations, consultative processes, settlement frameworks, and commitment-based mechanisms can help regulators secure faster compliance while minimizing unnecessary disruption to markets. Such approaches allow businesses to address concerns early, implement corrective measures, and move forward with greater certainty.
Importantly, balancing innovation and competition does not require compromising on enforcement standards. The goal should be to make enforcement smarter and more responsive. Regulators can remain firm on substantive principles while adopting more efficient procedural tools that reduce delay and improve outcomes. Transparent safeguards, clear eligibility criteria, and strong monitoring mechanisms can ensure that settlements or negotiated resolutions do not become loopholes, but instead function as instruments of effective compliance.
India’s long-term economic success will depend heavily on its ability to create a regulatory ecosystem that is trusted by consumers, respected by businesses, and attractive to global investors. A framework that combines strong competition oversight with speed, predictability, and institutional agility will be essential to sustaining innovation-led growth in the digital economy.
(Views are personal)
