Regulator cannot be regulated: Basketball Federation tells Delhi High Court in CCI probe case

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the response of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on a petition filed by the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) challenging an order directing a probe into alleged abuse of dominance and anti-competitive conduct, and listed the matter for hearing on March 10 . Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued notice on the petition and on the Federation’s plea seeking a stay on the investigation order, which it said has “global ramifications” .

Appearing for the Federation, senior advocate Vaibhav Gaggar told the court that “a regulator cannot be regulated” , arguing that BFI, as a national sports federation, primarily performs regulatory functions and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the CCI. “ The Competition Commission has acted beyond its powers. A national sports federation cannot be treated as a commercial entity, ” he submitted, seeking an immediate stay on the order directing investigation by the Director General on November 25, 2025.

The CCI’s action followed a complaint filed by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited (EPBPL) , which alleged that the Federation had abused its dominant position by denying it market access and restricting players from participating in competitions not recognised by BFI. The regulator took cognisance of the complaint dated March 11, 2024, on August 21, 2025, and held that “a prima facie case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act is made out,” warranting a detailed investigation.

According to the complainant, it had approached the Federation in 2022 with proposals to launch a professional basketball league, but its requests were allegedly ignored and later subjected to unreasonable conditions. EPBPL further claimed that players, referees, and coaches were warned against participating in unauthorised tournaments and threatened with disciplinary action , effectively limiting professional opportunities and restricting competition.

In its petition, the Federation said EPBPL had initially shown interest in becoming the organising partner for a professional league but failed to provide a detailed roadmap or participate in the tender process despite repeated invitations . It maintained that it was therefore duty-bound to identify another partner in the interest of the sport. “ The process of selecting organising partners through transparent and competitive bidding is a policy decision and not an economic activity, ” the Federation argued.

The Federation also contended that its role in granting affiliation, recognition, and issuing advisories to players was purely regulatory. “ Warning players against participation in unrecognised leagues is a policy measure to maintain discipline and standards, and does not amount to anti-competitive conduct or abuse of dominance, ” it said, adding that the CCI cannot act as a “super-regulator” in matters concerning sports governance.

Challenging the investigation order, the Federation asserted that the CCI had erroneously concluded that a prima facie case existed , and that the probe amounted to regulatory overreach. The High Court will hear the matter next on March 10.