The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed claims of anti-competitive practices and abuse of market dominance by Adani Group entities in a SECI solar tender case. The commission found no credible evidence of cartelisation or bid manipulation, emphasising India’s competitive power sector and the need for concrete harm to intervene.
India
-Oneindia Staff
The Competition Commission of India has dismissed allegations of anti-competitive practices and abuse of market dominance against Adani Enterprises Ltd. and its group entities in a solar power tender case, ruling that no prima facie violation of competition law was established.
The case was filed by Delhi-based informant Ravi Sharma against multiple parties, including Adani Green Energy Limited, Gautam Adani, Azure Power India Private Limited, and Solar Energy Corporation of India, along with several state power distribution companies and government entities. The complaint alleged that a 2019 solar power tender issued by SECI for setting up 7 GW of solar power projects linked with manufacturing capacity was designed to favour large players like Adani Group and Azure Power. It further claimed that the bidding process restricted competition, enabled capacity transfers, and ultimately led to consolidation of projects in favour of Adani entities.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed claims of anti-competitive practices and abuse of market dominance by Adani Group entities in a SECI solar tender case. The commission found no credible evidence of cartelisation or bid manipulation, emphasising India’s competitive power sector and the need for concrete harm to intervene.
According to the informant, Adani Group companies leveraged their market position and allegedly engaged in anti-competitive conduct, including exclusion of smaller players, manipulation of bidding mechanisms, and abuse of dominance in the renewable energy sector. Allegations also referenced developments in the United States, where enforcement agencies had reportedly investigated related matters.
However, after examining the submissions, additional affidavits, and responses from SECI and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the Commission found no substantive evidence to support claims of cartelisation, bid rigging, or abuse of dominant position.
The CCI observed that India’s power generation market is diverse and competitive, comprising multiple public and private players such as NTPC Limited, Tata Power Company Limited, JSW Energy Limited, and Suzlon Energy Limited. In such a landscape, the Commission noted that Adani Group does not appear to hold a dominant position.
On the issue of tender design, the regulator stated that procuring agencies have the discretion to set eligibility criteria and technical conditions based on their requirements. It further held that such conditions cannot be deemed anti-competitive merely because they may limit participation to larger players.
The Commission also rejected claims that provisions such as the “Green Shoe Option” or linking manufacturing capacity with power generation violated competition norms. It noted that these provisions were part of government policy aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing and had previously been upheld by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Regarding allegations of capacity transfer from Azure Power to Adani entities, the CCI found no evidence of collusion or premeditated arrangements. It accepted SECI’s explanation that reallocations were carried out following due process and in consultation with stakeholders to meet renewable energy obligations.
The regulator further stated that claims of bribery or corruption, even if assumed, do not automatically fall within the scope of abuse of dominance under competition law unless they directly impact market competition in a demonstrable way.
Concluding that the informant failed to provide credible evidence to establish anti-competitive conduct or dominance abuse, the CCI ordered closure of the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
The decision brings relief to the Adani Group and other entities involved, while reinforcing the Commission’s stance that allegations must be supported by concrete evidence and clear competition harm to warrant investigation.
