The Delhi High Court has witnessed the withdrawal of the Director General’s (DG) summons issued to Madison Communications, amid ongoing proceedings challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) search and seizure operations and investigative powers. The bench led by Justice Sachin Datta has recorded that fresh summons, if required, will be issued in due course, effectively keeping the matter in abeyance.
As per media reports, Madison has requested that an interim application be heard before any new summons are issued, to address outstanding procedural concerns. The court has agreed to grant two weeks for further steps and indicated that the matter will be taken up again after three weeks, with the next hearing scheduled for November 17.
Senior counsel representing Madison has argued that the statutory framework requires the CCI to explicitly name all entities to be investigated before the DG initiates any probe. Counsel has submitted that the DG has no independent power to expand the investigation by adding new parties without prior approval from the Commission, describing the DG’s actions as a “fishing and roving inquiry” akin to criminal enforcement.
The High Court has also examined issues arising from Regulations 46 and 47 of the CCI (General) Regulations, which govern the presence and consultation of legal counsel during DG questioning. Madison has contended that the restrictions unreasonably impede effective legal assistance. Justice Datta observed that if the Supreme Court has made interim arrangements on this matter, the High Court should follow them.
The petition challenges the CCI’s investigation that led to a 20-hour search and seizure operation at Madison’s Mumbai office on March 18–19, 2025. The proceedings stem from a leniency application filed in February 2024, which alleged a buyers’ cartel among advertisers operating under the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA).
Madison has highlighted that the CCI’s prima facie order itself notes that ISA members circulated a Model Agency Agreement (MAA) restricting negotiations between advertisers and agencies, adversely impacting agencies’ revenue models. The company, a member of the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), claims that AAAI and its members were actually victims of the alleged cartel, not perpetrators.
Despite this, Madison has argued that the DG targeted agencies through search operations while no equivalent searches were carried out on ISA members. The company has maintained that these actions have been discriminatory and arbitrary, causing severe reputational damage.
Madison has been represented by senior advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Rahul Goel during the proceedings.
