US technology major Apple has challenged India’s competition regulator before the Delhi High Court, arguing that it cannot be compelled to submit to what it described as an “unconstitutional penalty regime.” The company has questioned the amended framework of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that allows penalties to be imposed on the basis of a company’s global turnover in cases of alleged anti-competitive conduct.
In its response filed before the High Court, Apple contended that if a penalty is imposed under the revised provisions, the constitutional injury would already have occurred by the time the company is allowed to challenge the order before an appellate forum. The company maintained that it cannot be forced to first suffer an unlawful penalty and then seek judicial redress.
Apple clarified that it is not attempting to delay or obstruct the ongoing CCI investigation. However, it argued that when the very foundation of the law is unconstitutional, compelling a company to undergo punishment before judicial scrutiny is unjustified.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
Direct challenge to amended penalty provisions
Apple has questioned amendments made to the Competition Act, 2002, which empower the CCI to calculate penalties based on a company’s worldwide turnover, rather than turnover attributable to India. The company argued that this exposes it to disproportionate, arbitrary and irrational penalties that bear no direct nexus to the alleged conduct in the Indian market.
According to Apple, using global turnover as the basis for penalties ignores commercial realities and violates constitutional principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Indian law.
‘Cooperation in investigation does not mean acceptance of unconstitutional punishment’
The company told the court that it has consistently cooperated with the CCI and rejected allegations of delay or non-compliance. Apple emphasised that participation in an investigation cannot be equated with acceptance of an allegedly unconstitutional punishment mechanism.
Apple argued that once a massive penalty is imposed, the impact on its finances, reputation and regulatory standing is immediate and irreversible, even if the order is later challenged.
Appeal before NCLAT not an adequate remedy
A key plank of Apple’s argument is that the availability of an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) does not cure the constitutional violation. The company said that the harm caused by an excessive penalty arises the moment it is imposed, rendering post-penalty remedies ineffective.
Objection to demand for global financial disclosures
Apple has also objected to CCI’s directions requiring it to submit several years of audited global financial statements. The company described these demands as excessive and disproportionate, particularly when the investigation relates to alleged India-specific conduct.
According to Apple, seeking global financial data only strengthens the risk of penalties that are disconnected from domestic operations and consumer impact.
Exposure to fines running into billions
Under the amended law, Apple said it could theoretically face penalties of up to $38 billion, or approximately ₹3.2 lakh crore. The company described such potential fines as wholly arbitrary and irrational, arguing that they violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
Apple submitted that penalties of this magnitude, unrelated to Indian turnover or proven consumer harm, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Apple’s stance on competition
In its defence, Apple reiterated that it embraces competition as a core business principle. The company argued that competition drives innovation and enables it to offer better products, enhanced privacy protections and improved user experience.
Apple maintained that it has consistently complied with applicable laws and that its business practices are not designed to restrict competition.
Case with far-reaching implications
Legal experts believe the case could have significant implications for India’s competition law framework, especially in matters involving multinational and digital companies. The outcome is expected to shape the scope of regulatory powers to impose global turnover-based penalties.
The Delhi High Court is expected to continue hearing the matter. Its eventual ruling could set an important precedent on the balance between regulatory enforcement and constitutional safeguards in India’s competition regime.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
