Month: October 2011

A New Chairman, But A Right One ??

Former finance secretary Ashok Chawla was on Thursday sworn in as the new Chairman of the Competition Commission of India, filling up the key post that was lying vacant for over four months.

The appointment of a new Chairman is welcome, but one must wonder whether the former head of the Committee on Allocation, Pricing and Utilisation of Natural Resources is up to the task which he will now have to shoulder. The Commission has been subject to severe criticism in the past few months over the reasoning of its decisions and clearly requires an individual with not only a sound bent of logic and intelligence (which no doubt Mr. Chawla has), but also an individual with excellent knowledge and experience of competition law. Unfortunately, the latter characteristic is presently comparatively hard to find in India.

According to Hindustan Times, when asked about his mandate after taking charge, Chawla said, “It is difficult for me to prioritise any matter right now as I am yet to take a stock of the Commission.”

Also among the nominees was Mr. Anurag Goel, a Member of the Commission. With no intentions to demean Mr. Chawla, perhaps it would have been better to let an individual who has prior experience in the working of the Commission be made in charge of the regulatory authority.

It seems best to reserve judgement and to let the new Chairman’s work speak for itself.

Competition Surfing

An interesting pastime, if albeit, a tad bit nerdy for me has always been what I like to call “Competition Surfing”. Essentially, it involves randomly browsing through the internet for anything interesting related to competition law. Its fun to share a few such discoveries, just to spread the word about them.

An old but interesting video which was found during one of these surfing sessions was this one below. As part of our 25th  Anniversary celebration the Federalist Society presented a full-day Conference on June 26, 2007, honouring Judge Robert H. Bork and his contributions to the law. The hon’ble Judge has always been of the view that “antitrust enforcement had overzealously applied the law in a manner that led to the protection of inefficient firms and the sanctioning of efficient firms, to the ultimate detriment of consumers. This form of interference in the free market, he argued, raised consumer prices by supporting flagging companies in order to maintain the perception of competition.” The panel discusses his views and their effect on anti-trust law and enforcement over time.

It is a bit long, but worth the watch.