The CCI's IndiGo / Air India closure: no prima facie case on cancellation charges, despite 90% combined market share

The Indian domestic aviation market is, by any conventional competition-law measure, concentrated. The complainant before the Competition Commission of India alleged that InterGlobe Aviation Limited (operator of IndiGo) held roughly 65% of the market and Air India held roughly 27% — putting the combined share at approximately 90% of the domestic flight segment. The substantive allegation was that the two airlines were imposing "unconscionable and illegal" cancellation charges, setting arbitrary terms and prices for airline services, and engaging in conduct that — separately under Section 3 (anti-competitive agreements) or Section 4 (abuse of dominance) of the Competition Act, 2002 — was actionable.

On 11 March 2026, the CCI closed the matter. The disposition was on the threshold question: the Commission did not find a prima facie case of contravention. The closure was effected under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, which empowers the Commission to dispose of an information without ordering an investigation where, in its opinion, no prima facie case exists.

The doctrinal framework: Section 26(2)

For practitioners, the institutional architecture deserves clarifying.

When the CCI receives information under Section 19 — whether from an aggrieved person, a state government, an authority, or on its own motion — it has two routes. Where it forms the opinion that a prima facie case exists, it directs the Director General to investigate under Section 26(1). Where it forms the opinion that no prima facie case exists, it closes the matter under Section 26(2) with reasons to be recorded.

The Section 26(2) threshold is procedural in character. The Commission does not, at this stage, conduct a full substantive adjudication; it asks whether the information, taken at face value, discloses a credible competition-law concern that warrants the investigative machinery being engaged. The standard is lower than that for substantive contravention — but it is not negligible. The information must, on its face, identify conduct that — if true — would constitute contravention.

The Supreme Court's authority on the threshold — most prominently Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel (2019) 2 SCC 521 — has clarified that the Section 26(2) standard requires only a "prima facie view" and that the Commission's discretion at this stage is broad. The judicial-review framework for a Section 26(2) closure is, accordingly, limited.

The substantive reasoning

The CCI's stated reasons for finding no prima facie case engaged three substantive propositions.

Disclosure of terms

The first thread is informational. The CCI noted that the airlines have in place systems for refund of tickets, that the refund and cancellation terms are disclosed to passengers in advance of booking, and that these terms are uniform across passengers. From a competition-law perspective, the disclosure feature is doctrinally important: where contract terms are transparent and uniform, the conduct is harder to characterise as either collusion (because each passenger contracts on the disclosed terms) or as abuse (because the terms are not differentially applied).

The reasoning has limits. Transparency of terms does not, of itself, exclude competition concerns — uniform terms across competitors can themselves be evidence of coordination, and uniform application of harsh terms to consumers can be evidence of dominance abuse. But the CCI's framing was that the threshold case had not been made out — not that transparency was a complete defence.

Non-discriminatory application

The second thread engages Section 4 specifically. Abuse of dominance under Section 4 requires the dominant enterprise to engage in conduct that has anti-competitive effects — exclusionary, exploitative, or discriminatory. The CCI's reasoning was that the cancellation terms were applied equally to all consumers and not in a discriminatory, unfair, or exclusionary manner. The conduct, on this reading, did not exhibit the kind of differential treatment that characterises classical abuse of dominance.

The reasoning is doctrinally tight, but it does not engage every avenue of abuse analysis. Exploitative abuse — pricing or terms that are excessive to the point of being abusive in themselves — has been recognised in international competition law and increasingly in CCI practice. The closure reasoning does not, on what is publicly available, engage the exploitative-abuse possibility in detail.

Absence of agreement

The third thread engages Section 3. Anti-competitive agreement under Section 3 — particularly the horizontal agreements among competitors that Section 3(3) presumptively prohibits — requires the existence of an agreement or concerted practice. Parallel conduct, in the absence of direct evidence of agreement, is not, by itself, sufficient. The Commission's reasoning was that the complaint had not adduced material suggesting the existence of an agreement.

The reasoning here engages the classical evidentiary problem in cartel cases: the boundary between conscious parallelism (parallel conduct in an oligopolistic market) and concerted practice (parallel conduct + coordination). The Section 26(2) closure reflects the Commission's view that the threshold for triggering investigation into agreement had not been crossed on the materials before it.

The terms are disclosed in advance, applied equally to all consumers, and not in a discriminatory, unfair, or exclusionary manner. No prima facie case of contravention is made out.

What the disposition reveals about the CCI's posture

For the competition bar, the doctrinal interest in the disposition is less in the substantive holding and more in what it reveals about the threshold posture the CCI is currently applying.

The Section 26(2) closure trend

The 2024–2026 period has seen a substantial rise in the proportion of CCI matters disposed of at the Section 26(2) stage rather than being directed to investigation. The closure trend reflects, in part, the Commission's institutional priority on reserving investigative resources for cases where the threshold case is clear — and, in part, the Commission's substantive view on what counts as a credible competition concern in concentrated markets.

The IndiGo / Air India closure is part of this trend. The doctrinal proposition the trend embodies is that concentration alone — even very high concentration, as in domestic aviation — does not produce a prima facie case under Sections 3 or 4. The complainant must identify conduct, supported by material, that crosses the threshold for triggering investigation.

The transparency principle

The closure also illustrates the weight the Commission is giving to transparency of terms in consumer-facing pricing. Where contract terms are disclosed in advance, applied uniformly, and not the subject of evident differential treatment, the Commission's threshold inclination is to close. The reasoning does not foreclose challenge — it does require that the challenge engage substantively with what transparency does not cure.

For practitioners advising complainants in consumer-pricing matters, the implication is that the complaint must engage transparency at the substantive level — explaining why transparent and uniform terms can nonetheless be anti-competitive, identifying conduct that goes beyond the disclosed terms, or pointing to evidence of coordination notwithstanding apparent transparency.

The market-share-alone argument is not enough

The third implication is structural. Market share — even very high market share — is not, by itself, prima facie material for a Section 26(2) determination. The Commission requires identification of conduct: agreement, abuse, exclusionary practice, predatory pricing. A complaint that rests on concentration alone is exposed at the threshold.

This is a familiar competition-law proposition — dominance is not unlawful; conduct exploiting dominance is. The IndiGo / Air India closure is the recent illustration of how the CCI is applying the proposition in concentrated markets.

What the disposition does not foreclose

It is worth being precise about what the disposition does not do.

• It does not foreclose future challenge to cancellation-charge structures supported by different evidence. Where new material — direct evidence of coordination, internal communications suggesting collusion, evidence of exploitative pricing — emerges, the framework permits fresh information to be filed.
• It does not address the consumer-protection dimension of cancellation charges, which engages a separate framework under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A consumer-protection challenge to cancellation charges proceeds in a different forum on a different doctrinal basis and is not foreclosed by the Section 26(2) closure.
• It does not address sector-specific regulation of cancellation charges, which may engage the Directorate General of Civil Aviation or the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The CCI's framework operates alongside, not in displacement of, the sectoral regulatory framework.

What practitioners take from the closure

Three operational guides.

For competition complainants in concentrated markets. The Section 26(2) threshold requires identification of conduct, not just structure. The complaint should:

• Identify specific conduct alleged to be anti-competitive.
• Point to evidence — even at the prima facie level — supporting the allegation.
• Engage with transparency, uniformity, and other features of the conduct that may be defensive at the threshold.
• Distinguish the allegations from conscious parallelism.

For respondent enterprises. The closure's reasoning is part of the defensive posture available at the Section 26(2) stage. Where the enterprise can demonstrate transparency of terms, uniformity of application, and absence of coordination, the threshold defence has solid doctrinal support.

For the regulatory bar generally. The 26(2) closure trend signals that the CCI's investigative resources are being concentrated on cases with clearer threshold cases. Practitioners advising clients on competition strategy should expect a more rigorous threshold review than was characteristic of CCI practice in earlier years.

The bottom line

The CCI's March 2026 closure of the IndiGo / Air India complaint is a doctrinally significant Section 26(2) disposition. The reasoning — transparency of terms, uniformity of application, absence of evidence of agreement — articulates the threshold posture the Commission is applying in consumer-pricing complaints in concentrated markets. For complainants, the implication is that the complaint must identify substantive conduct, not merely structural concentration. For respondents, the framework provides a coherent defensive structure at the threshold. And for the regulatory bar, the closure is part of a 2024–2026 trend toward more rigorous threshold review — a trend that has institutional and substantive dimensions practitioners should be aware of.

---

Verify against the operative CCI order. The reasoned closure articulates the prima facie standard the Commission applied; the substantive question of whether transparent and uniform cancellation charges in concentrated markets are anti-competitive remains live and may be the subject of future complaints supported by different material.