Scribd
Upload
96 views3 pages

Competition Law Class Report Dated 01.09.2020

The class discussed the difference between law and policy, using the examples of the National Education Policy and the MRTP Act. It analyzed how policies can evolve into laws through committees and reports. The session examined how Articles 38 and 39 of the Indian Constitution provide the policy backing for the MRTP Act. It analyzed how the objectives in the MRTP Act's preamble align with these articles by seeking to control monopolies, prohibit monopolistic trade practices, and cover related matters. Students were assigned to further compare definitions across competition laws.

Uploaded by

Aman D Sharan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views3 pages

Competition Law Class Report Dated 01.09.2020

The class discussed the difference between law and policy, using the examples of the National Education Policy and the MRTP Act. It analyzed how policies can evolve into laws through committees and reports. The session examined how Articles 38 and 39 of the Indian Constitution provide the policy backing for the MRTP Act. It analyzed how the objectives in the MRTP Act's preamble align with these articles by seeking to control monopolies, prohibit monopolistic trade practices, and cover related matters. Students were assigned to further compare definitions across competition laws.

Uploaded by

Aman D Sharan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

COMPETITION LAW

CLASS REPORT OF DISCUSSION ON 01.09.2020

SUBMITTED BY AMAN.D.SHARAN (BA0170006) AND CHINTALURI VENKATA


SHREYA (BA0170017)

Topic: Law and Policy w.r.t MRTP Act, 1969

I. INTRODUCTION

The one hour class from 09.30 am to 10.30 am, primarily dealt with the concept of law and
policy and the analysis of the preamble of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Act (MRTP), 1969 and began with a summary of the previous class’s discussion. In the class
discussion on 01.09.2020 the following questions were raised, and the points discussed are
given below. The method of delivery was primarily lecture and discussion method.

II. CONTENTS OF THE SESSION

1. What is the difference between Law and Policy?

 Every law necessarily should be backed up by a policy.

For example: National Education Policy- Central Government in future may come up with
certain legislation based upon this Policy.

 However, it is not necessary that every policy evolves as a law.

We also dealt with the two basic steps involved in evolving of policy as a law and they are as
follows:

a. Framing a policy to analyze the Industry and then framing a law based upon that particular
policy.

b. You may form some kind of Committee/body and to study a particular law and find out
whether it needs any kind of amendment.

Example- SVS Raghavan Committee

The Question before the Parliament was whether India needed a separate competition law
legislation or a mere amend to The MRTP Act, 1969 to work in conformity with competition
law would suffice. The Committee analyzed the issue and on the basis of the SVS Raghavan
Committee Report (which acted as a policy), a completely new legislation- The Competition
Act, 2002 was enacted.

2. Whether Parliament can take an article from the constitution, and on the basis of that
article, form a law to give effect to its provisions?

Yes. Example- Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution empowers the state to make special
provisions for women and children. So, any law framed keeping in mind this provision of the
constitution, article 15(3) will be considered as a policy for that particular law. For instance,
the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The students were told that the best way to understand a policy behind a certain legislative
enactment is by analyzing two key concepts:

a. The Preamble to the legislation.

b. The concept of statement of Object and reasons.

Then we moved on to The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 which is
based on the Directive Principles of State Policy stated in Part IV of the Indian Constitution,
specifically Article 38 and 39 that provide the policy backing for this legislation.

3. How does Article 38 and 39 deal with MRTP Act and we looked upon whether the
Preamble of MRTP Act is in conformity with Article 38 and 3?

 First Point- So, the first point of the Preamble is the same as that of Article 39(c) and the
objective behind both is same i.e. power should not be concentrated in the hands of few.
 Second Point- “Control of Monopolies”. Here the word “control” can be interpreted in a
wide manner whose meaning could include the terms- Regulate, Prevention and
Prohibition under it.

“Regulate” - You exist as a monopoly; State will let the monopoly exist but it should satisfy
certain Terms and Conditions.

“Prevent” - To make sure that no new monopolies comes into place, while letting the existing
ones remain.
“Prohibit” - To destroy all the existing monopolies.

 Third Point- For the prohibition of Monopolistic Trade Practices


It was discussed that Monopoly needs to be regulated and it’s not bad in itself but
Monopolistic Trade activities are bad in law and they need to be prohibited completely.
 Fourth point- For the matter connected therewith or incidental thereto
This clause accommodates the evolving objectives. The clause aims to cover other
activities which are not covered under the previous clauses. It is humanely impossible for
a legislator to highlight all the possible objectives of a legislation and for that reason this
provision proves to be imperative. A reference was made regarding the term “Unfair
Trade Practices” and how the term is now included under the ambit of the MRTP Act,
1969 but hasn’t been specifically mentioned in the preamble as it is considered to fall
within the scope of matters that are connected or incidental to MRTP.

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS

With regard to the third question raised above, the Faculty for the course assigned the
students with the work of understanding the difference between the terms “Monopoly” and
“Monopolistic Trade Practices”. A brief discussion about the assignment assigned on the
previous class also took place that required a comparison of the definitions of the terms
“Monopolistic Trade Practice”, “Restrictive Trade Practice” and “Unfair Trade Practice”
from four legislations- Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP), 1969;
Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 1986; Competition Act (CA), 2002 and Consumer
Protection Act (CPA), 2019, but a detailed discussion was deferred until the next class.

You might also like