ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has upheld the powers of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) to investigate deceptive marketing and anti-competitive practices in the telecom sector, dismissing petitions filed by all major operators, Jazz, Telenor, Zong, Ufone, Warid, PTCL, and Wi-Tribe.
Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas, in a detailed 19-page verdict, ruled that the CCP acted within its lawful jurisdiction under the Competition Act, 2010 when it issued show-cause notices to telecom companies over misleading advertising and hidden charges on prepaid cards.
The judgment clarified that the CCP’s mandate extends across all sectors of the economy, including telecommunications, and operates alongside — not subordinate to — the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).
The dispute dates back to 2013–2014, when CCP issued notices to telecom operators for allegedly levying undeclared “service maintenance” or “recharge” fees on prepaid customers and for marketing so-called “unlimited internet” packages that were actually capped by fair usage limits. PTCL and Wi-Tribe had also challenged CCP’s notices regarding discriminatory pricing in their fixed-line services.
Rejecting the telecom companies’ claim that only PTA could regulate their business practices, the court ruled that both laws the Telecommunication Act 1996 and Competition Act 2010operate in “distinct but complementary domains.” While PTA regulates the technical and operational side of the industry, CCP has authority to address anti-competitive behavior and deceptive marketing.
Justice Minhas further observed that regulatory bodies like PTA can also fall within CCP’s purview, as the law defines “undertakings” to include government or regulatory entities.
Terming the petitions premature, the court noted that CCP’s show-cause notices were procedural steps, not final orders, and that the companies had adequate legal remedies before the Commission and its appellate forums.
“The CCP is fully empowered to perform its statutory functions, and interference at this stage would obstruct a lawful process,” the judgment stated.
