The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has made it clear — Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), holding only a modest 2.09% of the nation’s telecom pie, simply doesn’t have the market muscle to “abuse dominance.”
A four-member bench headed by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur dismissed allegations from CCL Optoelectronics Pvt. Ltd., which had accused BSNL of manipulating tender conditions to edge out competition. The order, passed on October 7, brought the dispute to an end without finding any violation under Section 4 of the Competition Act.
The controversy began with a December 2024 tender BSNL floated on the Government e-Marketplace for two lakh optical fiber splice closures. CCL, a registered MSME, claimed exemption from turnover requirements and said it had previously supplied large quantities to major telecom firms. Yet, BSNL’s portal marked the company ineligible, citing “past performance” deficiencies — particularly its failure to prove supply of at least 30,000 splice joint closures as demanded.
CCL alleged foul play, asserting that BSNL had tailored its tender terms to benefit three specific companies—R&M India, Ampson Engineering, and Nav Fibro Plastics—and that the criteria were quietly altered from previous years. It sought interim relief and even a penalty on BSNL, accusing the telecom PSU of restrictive trade practices.
But CCI was unmoved. Before weighing the allegations, the Commission examined the telecom market landscape: Reliance Jio commands 40.07%, Bharti Airtel 32.01%, Vodafone Idea 14.37%, Bharti Hexacom 2.41%, and BSNL a distant fifth with 2.09%. On those numbers alone, the CCI said, BSNL lacks the dominance required to misuse it.
“Dissatisfaction with tender terms or disqualification of bids does not automatically translate into unfair or discriminatory conduct,” the order stated. It emphasized that such grievances belong on the GeM portal, not before the competition regulator.
Finding no prima facie case, the CCI closed the proceedings under Section 26(2) and declined interim relief.
The verdict effectively draws a boundary line between what constitutes an anti-competitive act and what falls squarely within routine procurement discretion.
