SC dismisses plea for regulating internet prices, cites free market competition

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking regulation of Internet prices in India, stating that the telecom sector operates in a free market with multiple service providers. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the plea filed by petitioner Rajat, who alleged that a few companies dominated the Internet market, leading to unfair pricing.

The petitioner claimed that Reliance Jio controlled a significant share of the market, reducing consumer choice and impacting pricing fairness. In response, the bench observed, "It's a free market. There are several options. BSNL and MTNL are also giving you Internet." The court maintained that consumers had the ability to choose from various service providers, making regulatory intervention unnecessary.

The bench further stated that if the petitioner was alleging cartelization, he should approach the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which is responsible for handling anti-competitive practices. "If you are alleging cartelization, then go to the Competition Commission of India," the court said. It also clarified that the petitioner was free to pursue any appropriate statutory remedy available under the law.

According to data from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Reliance Jio held a 50.40% market share in FY24, followed by Bharti Airtel with 30.47%. The total number of Internet subscribers in India increased from 881.25 million in March 2023 to 954.40 million in March 2024, reflecting an 8.30% annual growth. BSNL and MTNL, the state-run telecom operators mentioned by the court, continue to provide services but hold a smaller market share compared to private operators.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the current regulatory framework in the telecom sector, where pricing is determined by competition rather than government control. With major players such as Jio, Airtel, BSNL, and MTNL offering services, the court upheld the principle of market-driven pricing while leaving room for legal action in cases of alleged cartelization.