General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q7

Discuss the role of the Competition Commission of India in containing the abuse of dominant position by the Multi-National Corporations in India. Refer to the recent decisions. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में बहुराष्ट्रीय निगमों के द्वारा प्रभावशाली स्थिति के दुरुपयोग को रोकने में भारत के प्रतिस्पर्धा आयोग की भूमिका पर चर्चा कीजिए। हाल के निर्णयों का संदर्भ लें। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर) 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Discuss requires a balanced examination of CCI's multifaceted role—regulatory, adjudicatory, and preventive—against MNC dominance, supported by recent case law. Structure: brief intro on CCI's mandate under Competition Act 2002 → body covering statutory powers, enforcement mechanisms, and recent decisions → conclusion on effectiveness and challenges.

Key points expected

CCI's statutory mandate under Section 4 of Competition Act 2002 to prevent abuse of dominant position
Key enforcement tools: investigation, penalties, cease & desist orders, and behavioral remedies
Recent decisions: Google (Android, 2022; Play Store, 2023), Amazon (Future Retail, 2023), WhatsApp/Facebook (2021)
Specific abusive practices targeted: predatory pricing, exclusive agreements, data leveraging, platform self-preferencing
Challenges: cross-border jurisdiction, resource constraints, appellate delays at NCLAT/Supreme Court
Balanced assessment of CCI's effectiveness in digital markets vs traditional sectors

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly distinguishes 'discuss' from mere description; presents multiple dimensions of CCI's role (regulatory, punitive, preventive) with nuanced treatment of tensions between MNC investment and market fairness	Addresses CCI's role adequately but treats 'discuss' as simple description; misses analytical tension or presents one-sided view	Misinterprets directive as 'describe' or 'list'; provides only definition of CCI or generic anti-trust principles without addressing MNC-specific context
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately cites Section 4 provisions, delineates dominance test (market share, entry barriers, countervailing power), and correctly identifies recent CCI orders with specific penalties/remedies	Mentions Competition Act and abuse of dominance generally; minor inaccuracies in case details or conflates CCI with other regulators (SEBI, RBI)	Factual errors (wrong sections, outdated cases pre-2018, confuses CCI with MRTP Commission); vague references to 'fair competition' without legal grounding
Structure & flow	20%	2	Tight 150-word architecture: crisp intro (20 words), logically sequenced body covering mandate-tools-cases, and pointed conclusion; seamless transitions between statutory framework and practical enforcement	Recognizable intro-body-conclusion but uneven weightage (overlong case descriptions, abrupt shifts); some repetition due to poor planning	No discernible structure; random listing of points; exceeds word limit significantly or leaves conclusion dangling; poor paragraphing
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Cites 2-3 post-2020 CCI decisions with specific outcomes: Google Android (₹1,337 crore penalty), Amazon-Future (₹200 crore penalty), WhatsApp privacy policy; mentions CCI's market studies on digital markets	One accurate recent case mentioned vaguely; or mixes CCI orders with other jurisdictions (EU Google cases); no specific penalty/remedy details	No examples, or only pre-2015 cases (Microsoft 2009); fictional cases; generic 'MNCs like Google and Amazon' without specific CCI action
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Critical assessment: acknowledges CCI's deterrence value but notes limitations (appellate delays, digital market complexity, need for ex-ante regulation); forward-looking suggestion on Digital Competition Bill or international cooperation	Balanced but descriptive conclusion ('CCI plays important role'); no critical insight or misses contemporary policy developments	Pure summary repetition; abrupt ending; unsupported extreme position ('CCI completely failed' or 'fully successful'); no connection to broader competition policy

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →