Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Apple’s Plea Against CCI’s Global Turnover Penalty Rule

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice on a petition filed by tech giant Apple challenging recent amendments to the Competition Act, 2002, which empower the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to compute penalties based on a company’s global turnover.

Apple has questioned the amended Section 27(b), which allows the CCI to impose fines of up to 10 percent of the average turnover of the previous three financial years on companies found guilty of anti-competitive conduct or abuse of dominance. 

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Union Government and the CCI to file their responses within a week and posted the matter for further hearing on December 16.

The Bench ordered, “Issue notice. Let the respondents file their affidavit in reply within one week. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed thereafter. The matter shall be taken up high on board on December 16.”

Appearing for Apple, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the amendment permits the CCI to take into account all global revenue, including earnings from unrelated products, markets and jurisdictions, while determining penalties. He submitted that such an approach violates constitutional principles of proportionality and contradicts earlier Supreme Court rulings requiring penalties to align with revenue connected to the alleged violation.

Singhvi also objected to the retrospective effect of the amendment, saying, “This amendment has been made effective from March 6, 2024, and will impact past cases.”

During the hearing, the Bench sought clarification and asked, “If the Competition Commission initiates proceedings in respect of only one product, how can turnover from other unrelated products be considered? An infringement or anti-competitive conduct must relate to the product complained of. Would it not be unreasonable to include revenue from unrelated markets?”

Responding for the CCI, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh defended the amendment and submitted that the global turnover provision is intended for situations where foreign entities may have negligible or no declared Indian turnover, yet their conduct affects Indian markets.

He argued that in cases where companies refuse to disclose relevant financial details or claim no turnover in India despite having market presence, the ability to rely on global turnover ensures enforceability. Singh added that the concept of global turnover is to determine the quantum of penalty and not to establish liability, which must still be assessed with respect to the relevant product market and alleged contravention.

After hearing the submissions, the court noted that the question of relevant turnover had been substantially addressed. It asked the counsel about the issue concerning global turnover. 

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for the CCI, defended the amendment and argued that global turnover is relevant in cases involving foreign enterprises. He submitted, “When a foreign company engages in anti-competitive practices that affect the Indian market, how do you penalise them if they show little or no turnover in India? The relevant turnover framework continues to exist, but the global turnover concept serves a different purpose.”

He clarified that the Commission may consider global turnover only for determining the penalty and said, “If individuals or entities sitting outside India do not provide information, and despite Section 32 applicability, their conduct is shown to affect India, what is the alternative? They may say they have zero turnover in India. In such cases, global turnover becomes the only workable benchmark,” he argued.

He added that mitigating circumstances under the statute would still be considered and noted, “They have approached the court at a stage when the investigation report is already complete."

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the issue of relevant turnover had been substantially addressed and sought clarity on the concerns raised regarding global turnover.

Responding to the query, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh submitted, “There appears to be no inherent unreasonableness in the provision. These are mere apprehensions. I will tell you, my Lords, what they are trying to stall.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 16.

Case Title: Apple Inc. & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Hearing Date: 1 December 2025