MRTP Act 1969: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices

In 1969, the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices or MRTP Act was set forth in India. Its paramount aim was to deter activities that may restrain fair trade and harm consumer well-being. Starting its full operation on 1st June 1970, it encompassed all Indian states except Jammu and Kashmir.

This legislation focused on stopping monopolies and ensuring a balance of power within industries or markets. It also aimed to dissolve any restrictive agreements that limited fair competition or artificially influenced pricing. Notably, the MRTP Act evolved over time through amendments enacted in 1974, 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1991 to remain pertinent to the further shifting economic landscapes.

Though vital in its time, the MRTP Act saw its successor in 2002 with the Competition Act. This newer act brought about a contemporary approach to regulating competition in India, replacing the original framework. Additionally, the aim of the Competition Act was to establish a Competition Commission. This commission was further tasked with countering activities detrimental to competition. This meant fostering market competition, safeguarding consumer rights, and upholding the freedom to engage in fair trade.

This website contains affiliate links. When you make a purchase through these links, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

Background and Need for the MRTP Act

Post-1947, India saw a surge in the entry of influential firms, filling the market. With scarce rivals, therefore, these new entrants sought to dominate sectors. Recognizing the threat to consumer welfare, the Indian government enacted the MRTP bill in 1969.

Objectives of the MRTP Act

The MRTP Act was designed with several key goals in mind. It aimed to prevent the accumulation of economic dominance, oversee and curb monopolistic actions, and also halt unfair and restrictive trading practices.

MRTP Act 1969 Provisions

Key Provisions and Amendments of the MRTP Act

The MRTP Act, characterized by its stance against monopolistic, restrictive, and unfair trade practices, also mandated the formation of the MRTP Commission. Furthermore, this body was tasked with scrutinizing and overseeing agreements that involved restrictive trade practices. Over time, this Act underwent several amendments, notably in 1984 and 1991. The 1984 amendment broadened its scope to include the regulation of unfair trade practices, diversifying its oversight. However, it was the 1991 amendment that significantly reshaped its objectives. This later amendment de-emphasized the Act’s initial objectives while reinforcing its stance on the prohibition of specific forms of trade practices.

The MRTP Act was enacted in 1969, and its enforcement began on June 1st, 1970, hence, marking a pivotal moment in India’s economic regulation. Subsequent years also witnessed multiple amendments to this legislation, notable ones occurring in 1974, 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1991. Moreover, the amendment in 1984 stands out for introducing the regulation of unfair trade practices within the MRTP Act’s purview. The 1991 amendment, however, was more substantial, refining the Act’s goals to address the Prohibition of Monopolistic Trade Practices, Prohibition of Restrictive Trade Practices, and Prohibition of Unfair Trade Practices, thereby updating its enforcement strategies in alignment with evolving economic frameworks.

Focused on curtailing monopolistic and restrictive trade behaviours, the MRTP Act aimed at safeguarding the interests of both fair competition and consumers. It spanned its jurisdiction over entities whose market behaviours were deemed monopolistic or restrictive. By keeping a check on such practices, the Act sought to maintain a level playing field in the market, ensuring fair trade for all involved.

Definition and Examples

Monopolistic trade practices signify leveraging market dominance to distort market dynamics in the sphere of goods and services exchange. As a result, this misconduct manifests as suppression or exclusion of contenders, exploitation via exorbitant pricing, reduction in the quality of offerings, suppression of innovation, and engagement in unjust commerce tactics.

Monopolistic trade practices depict actions employed by entities or persons desiring to secure and affirm an authoritative stance within the market. Such endeavours further encompass tactics like predatory pricing, the act of not engaging in commerce, confining deals exclusively, and linking sales. That is, their goal is to smother market competition, enabling the entity in control to dictate elevated prices and restrict the freedom of consumers.

Regulation under the MRTP Act

The MRTP Act aimed at overseeing monopolistic trade practices. Therefore, tts provisions forbade the misuse of a significant position, differential pricing, and other discriminatory activities deployed by those in power to sustain their dominance. The MRTP Commission was endowed with the authority to scrutinize and enact measures against these manoeuvres, aiming to cultivate an ecosystem of just competition and guard the welfare of consumers.

Within the jurisdiction of the MRTP Act, Restrictive Trade Practices emanating from Section 10(a)(i) reside as a fundamental focus. Documentation denotes 293 inquiries fielded within the April to December 2005 timeframe. Amongst these, 245 inquiries remained unresolved by the end of that year.

Types of Restrictive Trade Practices

Entities within the market strategically engage in restrictive trade practices to wield influence and amplify financial gains. These actions curtail the influx of capital towards production, thus influencing supply dynamics. Such constraints lead to the establishment of unwarranted delivery conditions, further resulting in inflated costs. Notable strategies encompass refusal to transact, binding agreements, the requirement to carry full product lines, dealings exclusive to select parties, varied pricing amongst customers, dictating minimum resale costs, and pricing items below operational costs to eliminate competitors.

The legislative contours of the MRTP Act are calibrated to demarcate monopolistic trade behaviours from group-restrictive ones, aiming to maintain market fairness. It also delineates between solitary market domination and collective strategies by multiple entities to sidestep competitive pressures. The Act delineates three primary categories: monopolistic trade operations, collective restrictive practices, and deceptive practices, deploying tailored measures for each.

Unfair trade practices encompass deceptive trade strategies leading to consumer harm. These further include misrepresenting product qualities, offering false guarantees, and providing inaccurate information about affiliations or sponsorships. The MRTP Act sought to curb such practices, amending its provisions in 1984 to explicitly address them.

Definition and Scope

Under the MRTP Act, unfair trade practices leverage deceitful or unfair techniques to enhance product or service appeal. Skillfully navigating a labyrinth of misconduct, this legislation fends off a plethora of strategies designed to deceive consumers.

Examples of Unfair Trade Practices

Unjust practices under the MRTP Act involve a spectrum of deceit. This also includes misrepresenting goods, their qualities, or performance metrics, along with deceptive pricing and production information. Therefore, crafting a shield against such falsehoods, the Act targets any false or misleading advertising surrounding product necessity, availability, and after-sale protections.

Regulation under the MRTP Act

In its mission to safeguard consumers, the MRPT Act entrusted the MRPT Commission with the authority to investigate and mitigate unfair trade practices. April to December 2005 saw 491 inquiries undertaken by the Commission in this realm. However, 437 inquiries remained pending by the end of the year and only 54 reached resolution.

Remedy in these cases included orders to halt deceptive actions and the imposition of sanctions, thus, illustrating a commitment to consumer welfare through stringent enforcement actions.

Total number of unfair trade practice inquiries considered during April 2005-December 2005491
Total complaints handled by the office during April 2005-December 2005 concerning consumer protection123
Year of MRTP Act Establishment1969
Enforcement Start DateJune 1st, 1970
Important Amendment Years1974, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1991
Replacement LegislationCompetition Act 2002


The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act or MRTP Act established the MRTP Commission with a flexible membership ranging between two to eight individuals. Ensuring a high level of expertise, the chairman was mandated to possess qualifications suitable for a Supreme Court or High Court judge. Meanwhile, the commission members were required to have comprehensive knowledge and experience in various disciplines such as law, economics, and public affairs.

Functions and Responsibilities

In its pursuit to combat monopolistic, restrictive, and unfair trade practices, the MRTP Commission also undertook rigorous inquiries. At the beginning of 2005, 5 inquiries were pending under Section 10(b) focusing on Monopolistic Trade Practices. No new inquiries were launched by the MRTP Commission between April and December 2005. Notably, all 5 of these inquiries were still pending by the end of 2005.

Simultaneously, under Section 10(a)(i), the MRTP Commission meticulously evaluated 289 investigations throughout 2004, including a substantial number carried over from the previous year. Of the total inquiries considered, only 19 were successfully resolved, showing a significant backlog of 270 unresolved cases by the year’s end.

The MRTP Commission’s investigative capabilities were bolstered by the presence of the Director General of Investigation and Registration, who orchestrated and facilitated the conduction of these inquiries. Specific to Section 10(a)(iv), the Commission inherited 65 inquiries from the prior year and initiated 2 new probes during 2004. Despite resolving two of the ongoing investigations, the number of inquiries yet to be concluded remained at 65 by the end of that year.

Addressing unfair trade practices demanded a significant effort. In this regard, the MRTP Commission scrutinized a total of 432 inquiries during 2004. However, only 34 of these inquiries were finalized, highlighting the extensive pending workload with 398 cases still awaiting resolution at the close of the year.

Sources: Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India

Role of the Director General of Investigation and Registration

The Director General of Investigation and Registration was pivotal in enforcing the MRTP Act. The Director General, hence, conducted initial investigations into monopolistic, restrictive, and unfair trade practices as directed by the MRTP Commission. Its tasks included self-triggered preliminary investigations and application submissions for further scrutiny. Following these initial probes, the Commission proceeded with formal inquiries into purported transgressions.

As the investigative whip of the MRTP Commission, the Director General meticulously gathered evidence and crafted reports concerning anti-competitive behaviours. Their duties also encompassed initiating preliminary investigations and delivering the acquired data to the Commission. This process empowered the latter to decide on commencing rigorous inquiries. The Director General, thus, played a vital part in ensuring the MRTP Act’s rules were effectively executed.

Inquiry Procedures and Proceedings

The MRTP Commission, leveraging the findings of the Director General, launched inquiries into activities deemed monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair. For instance, within the frame of April 2005 to December 2005, it evaluated numerous cases related to Unfair Trade Practices and Restrictive Trade Practices, alongside applications for Temporary Injunctions. Despite resolving some matters, a sizeable caseload persisted, necessitating the Commission’s continued attention.

Under the MRTP Act, inquiry processes entailed in-depth reviews, hearings, and the evaluation of submitted evidence. The Commission also held the authority to issue mandates and impose sanctions on those participating in monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade acts. Therefore, this operation was designed to foster even competition and safeguard the welfare of consumers within India’s commercial sphere.

The MRTP Act, instrumental in regulating the Indian market, also mandated the registration of agreements linked to restrictive trade practices. Section 35 stipulated that any agreement concerning these practices must be submitted for registration within 60 days of its inception.

Requirements for Registration

Tasks related to the registration of such agreements fell under the purview of the Office of the Director General of Investigation and Registration, established under the MRTP Act of 1969. This entity was further tasked with enacting Section 35, focusing on agreements tied to the restrictive practices as outlined in Section 33(1).

Process and Statistics

Between April to December of 2005, the office processed 7 agreements for registration, all of which were successfully entered into the Register of Agreements. By December 2005, a significant total of 39,993 agreements were filed, with detailed information on 39,116 agreements recorded in the Register.

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act of 1969 also established mechanisms for the issuance of temporary injunctions and the provision of compensation to aggrieved entities. By April 2005, the MRTP Commission had accumulated 143 unresolved applications seeking temporary injunctions pursuant to Section 12A of the Act. By December 2005, individuals further submitted 43 more applications, bringing the total number of applications to 186. 55 applications received a decision, while they left 131 unresolved.

Additionally, under Section 12B, the Act afforded a course for demanding compensation. Over the same administrative period, a staggering 1,341 requests for compensation were evaluated. Despite 126 cases reaching a conclusion, 1,215 applications remained pending at the close of December 2005. These facets of the MRTP Act, concerning the issuance of temporary injunctions and compensation, were designed to promptly address the grievances of entities impacted by monopolisticrestrictive, and unfair trade practices.

Significance and Provisions

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act in India, established in 1969, underscored the critical nature of safeguarding consumer interests. As a result, it delineated a specific section on deceptive trade practices in 1984, enabling consumers to lodge complaints pertaining to such violations. In the period between April 2005 and December 2005, the MRTP Commission received 123 complaints of this nature. Of these, they resolved 64 matters and left 59 pending resolution. The legislation also stressed expeditious resolution of consumer disputes related to deceptive trade practices, highlighting its consumer-focused ethos.

The drafters crafted the MRTP Act to protect consumers from monopolies, restrictive practices, and deceitful dealings. It further conferred the authority upon consumers to challenge entities involved in illicit offerings, misleading warranties, and misleading information that could infringe on public welfare. Hence, such inclusive protective measures within the MRTP Act indicate its determined approach to fostering equitable trade settings.

Redressal Mechanisms

The MRTP Act laid down proficient grievance redressal paths for consumers. The MRTP Commission was also responsible for promptly investigating and adjudicating consumer complaints regarding fraudulent commercial behaviors, thanks to its facilitation of such complaints. Swift resolution of consumer concerns stood as a pivotal aim of the MRTP Act, elucidating its core mission to endow consumer groups with necessary legal backing and safeguards.

Effectiveness and Impact of the MRTP Act

The application of the MRTP Act encountered various impediments, with a central figure, the Director General of Investigation and Registration, crucial in instigating inquiries for the MRTP Commission.

The MRTP Act, though partially effective, suffered criticism owing to its restricted applicability, labyrinthine procedures, and failure to adapt to the burgeoning intricacies of the Indian market.

Limitations and Criticisms

The MRTP Act was panned as static and uncertain, necessitating multiple revisions and culminating in its substitution by the Competition Act due to its inherent deficiencies and rigidity. A notable critique was the Act’s broad application, subjecting all enterprises, without discrimination, to an onerous governmental oversight, thereby impeding market dynamics. The failure to articulate clear, unambiguous definitions, particularly concerning restrictive trade practices, emerged as a recurrent criticism, intensifying the difficulty in pinpointing anti-competitive behaviour.

On September 1, 2009, the Competition Act of 2002 replaced the MRTP Act. It aimed to establish the Competition Commission. Moreover, this body was to prevent practices detrimental to competition, foster and maintain a competitive market, safeguard consumer interests, and uphold the freedom of trade.

The shift from the MRTP Act’s focus on restraining monopolies occurred with the introduction of the Competition Act of 2002. This new act viewed competition matters through an economic lens. In contrast, the MRTP Act predominantly approached these issues from a legal standpoint.

Under the umbrella of the Competition Act, the Competition Commission of India was inaugurated. Furthermore, its role includes oversight of anti-competitive agreements, the misuse of dominant positions, and detrimental combinations. By prohibiting anti-competitive actions and ensuring fair competition, the act also protects consumer welfare and supports economic growth.

The Competition Act, as articulated in its preamble, had varied aims. Chief among these were the eradication of harmful competition practices, maintenance of market dynamics, protection of consumers, and the overarching promotion of fair trade. The legislation contained mechanisms to avert practices that interfere with competition, maintain and bolster competitive markets, and safeguard consumer rights. Additionally, it facilitates unrestricted trade among all market participants in India while covering associated concerns

In terms of competition regulation, the Competition Act further tasked the Competition Commission of India with crucial responsibilities. This commission champions competition, drives awareness, and provides educational support relating to competition issues.

The MRTP Act, a keystone in India’s economic journey, sought to bar monopolies and unfair trading, thus ensuring competitive markets and safeguarding consumer rights. The MRTP Commission aimed at curbing monopolistic and restrictive business behaviours. Notwithstanding its achievements in repressing certain antitrust actions, the Act encountered considerable critique and limitations, compelling its substitution by the Competition Act of 2002. By doing so, it not only significantly influenced the competitive dynamics within India but also laid the groundwork for more holistic competition legislation.

Enforced in 1969, the MRTP Act applied nationwide, excluding only Jammu & Kashmir, focusing on thwarting the accumulation of economic power among a select elite. Its scope evolved over time through several amendments, culminating in 1991 when its stance on curbing monopolistic, restrictive, and unfair trade practices was solidified. However, criticism mounted over the absence of clearly defined measures for restrictive trade procedures, fostering regulatory ambiguity.

The denouement of the MRTP Act came with the advent of the Competition Act, of 2002. Endeavouring to introduce a more exhaustive competition regime, the Competition Act purposed to forestall activities detrimental to fair market practices, bolster market competition, and shield consumer welfare. The historical impact of the MRTP Act on India’s competitive ethos, and its stance on economic oversight and consumer shield, remains indelible.

Leave a Reply