Full Answer Section

Trustbusting in India

India has a long history of trustbusting. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act) was enacted in 1969 to prevent and control monopolies and restrictive trade practices. The MRTP Act was replaced by the Competition Act in 2002. The Competition Act is a comprehensive antitrust law that prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and combinations (i.e., mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations).

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is responsible for enforcing the Competition Act. The CCI has been active in investigating and prosecuting anti-competitive practices. For example, in 2012, the CCI imposed a record fine on 11 cement companies for cartelisation and price fixing.

Comparison and contrast of trustbusting in India and the United States

The United States has a longer history of trustbusting than India. The Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted in 1890 to prohibit anti-competitive agreements and trusts. The Clayton Antitrust Act was enacted in 1914 to prohibit mergers and acquisitions that would substantially lessen competition.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice are responsible for enforcing the antitrust laws in the United States. The FTC and the Antitrust Division have a long history of aggressively enforcing the antitrust laws. For example, in 1911, the Supreme Court ordered the breakup of Standard Oil, which was the largest company in the world at the time.

One key difference between trustbusting in India and the United States is the role of the government. The government of India has played a more active role in trustbusting than the US government. For example, the government of India has created specialized agencies, such as the CCI, to enforce the Competition Act. The US government, on the other hand, has relied more on private lawsuits to enforce the antitrust laws.

Another key difference is the scope of trustbusting. The antitrust laws in the United States are broader than the Competition Act in India. For example, the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits all anti-competitive agreements, regardless of their effect on competition. The Competition Act in India, on the other hand, only prohibits anti-competitive agreements that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

Conclusion

Trustbusting is an important tool for promoting economic competition and innovation. India and the United States have a long history of trustbusting. However, there are some key differences between trustbusting in the two countries. The government of India has played a more active role in trustbusting than the US government. The antitrust laws in the United States are also broader than the Competition Act in India.