Read Time: 09 minutes

Hearing a petition moved by Google LLC in the Delhi High Court alleging leaks of "confidential" information from an anti-trust probe against Google by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) a single judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli today held that with CCI having no objections to accept Google's requests of confidentiality, "nothing survives in the petition". However, the court said that it has not expressed any opinion on Google's claim that it was the CCI which was responsible for the alleged leaks. 

The court ordered, "Google has come up with suggestions which have been handed over in court and taken on record. Ld. ASG submits that even though the Commission stands by legality of impugned order and there is no question of breach of confidential information or leaking information to media, in order to expedite proceedings, it has no objection to accept all requests of the petitioner of confidentiality. The commission is willing to maintain confidentiality as contained in the application submitted."

Agreeing to Google's prayer that it might be given the liberty to approach court in case of any future breach, the bench said, "Needless to say, in case the petitioner still has a grievance that the information is leaked, it will be open for the petitioner to take legal recourse in law."

Earlier, as well as today, ASG N Venkataramana appearing for CCI vehemently denied leaking confidential reports as alleged by Google. Google LLC had alleged that CCI leaked to the media a confidential interim fact-finding report submitted by the Director General’s (DG) office to the CCI on an ongoing investigation into Google’s Android smartphone agreements.

Sr. Adv. Dr. AM Singhvi appearing for Google LLC had submitted before the single judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli that there is a violation of confidentiality by CCI and that "everyday this leak is happening."

Singhvi had urged that the impugned order allowing confidentially to be breached must be stayed, arguing that the impugned order was passed on August 23 and was made available to Google on September 16 and during this period no hearing was granted to Google, which was a denial of the right to natural justice as well.

ASG N Venkataraman appearing for CCI submitted that the affidavit filed by Google was “a truncated and an over-exaggerated affidavit” where allegations were made against a government body but not a word in the affidavit said that CCI had leaked the report.

Vankatramana argued that if there was a breach of confidentiality and Google LLC had suffered damages, media houses such as Times of India and Economic Times should have been impleaded as party to the present petition, which allegedly reported on the leaked information.

At this Singhvi had argued that the report should have been between the Director General (DG) and the CCI only and if it has been published by the media, it had to have been leaked from the CCI’s office.

Singhvi had said in this regard, “They should not have leaked the information first of all. They are asking me to implead Times of India but how did the news leak when it was supposed to be between the DG and CCI. They want to send to us to a wild goose chase.”

Venkataramana had argued that Google LLC was “shocked to receive the order”. He had submitted that “They were not expecting such an order but we had to pass an order. There are various judgements that say that principles of natural justice are not required in this kind of case. We have passed an order after 6 years, following turbulences and now they have to prove their case. They want to frustrate this procedure by filing this case.”

Denying allegations of leaking the said confidential report, Venkataramana submitted that CCI had abided by Section 57 of the Competition Act.

The court, however, had said that it would have to peruse the report of the Appellate Authority, after which an order would be passed. 

Google had filed the writ petition seeking redressal in the matter, specifically protesting against the breach of confidence stating that it impairs Google’s ability to defend itself, and harms Google and its partners.

Reportedly, the fact finding interim report submitted by the DG’s office to the CCI on September 18, found Google guilty of using practices to suppress competition to maintain dominance in several areas it operates including music (Youtube), search engine (Chrome) and app store (Play Store) among others.

Case Title: Google LLC vs Competition Commission of India and Ors