Competition Act 2002

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FACED BY ELECTION COMMISSION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DEVELOPING NATIONS Nishtha Singh, LL.M Student at Amity University Lucknow Campus (India) Dr. Taru Mishra, Assistant Professor at Amity University Lucknow Campus (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.18 Election commissions in developing nations work inside fragile democracies with deep social divides and uneven state capacity, so pressure on electoral administration stays high. This paper studies how law, institutions and political practice shape the independence and credibility of these bodies. It takes India as the primary case and then compares it with other developing jurisdictions to see how different constitutional choices seek to secure free and fair elections. The analysis links domestic rules with global norms on political participation. It places guarantees of genuine periodic elections under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and General Comment No. 25 next to national constitutional provisions. It then studies how Article 324 of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Acts and related rules build the mandate of the Election Commission of India, and how far this mandate reflects emerging good practice in the Global South. Attention also goes to voter registration, campaign regulation, media oversight and the rapid growth of digital tools in electioneering, since these factors test the capacity of election commissions in visible ways. The paper engages with decisions of the Supreme Court of India and apex courts in other developing democracies. It examines how courts describe the idea of free and fair elections, and how they use judicial review to protect or reshape the powers of election commissions. Decisions such as Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and the South African case New National Party of South Africa v. Government of the Republic of South Africa illustrate how courts treat election bodies as constitutional guardians of electoral integrity.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON V. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR., 2025 Drishti Banerjee, LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law and Management, WIPO-NLU DELHI-IPO (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.17 This case analysis examines the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Johnson & Johnson v. Pritamdas Arora t/a M/s Medserve & Anr., 2025, a significant ruling addressing large-scale counterfeiting of surgical medical devices. The dispute arose after counterfeiting hemostatic products bearing the registered trademarks ‘SURGICEL’ and ‘ETHICON’ were traced to an organised distribution network linked to the Defendants in New Delhi. The counterfeit goods involved expired products that were repackaged, relabelled with falsified expiry dates, and distributed domestically and internationally, posing serious public health risks. The principal legal issues before the Court concerned: (i) infringement of registered trademarks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; (ii) passing off in respect of non-registered marks and trade dress; (iii) the grant of permanent injunctive relief; and (iv) the assessment of compensatory and exemplary damages in cases of deliberate and calculated counterfeiting involving medical devices. The Court held that the Defendants were guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and organised counterfeiting. Relying on documentary evidence, including electronic communications and findings of Local Commissioners, the Court established deliberate falsification, fraudulent misrepresentation, and transnational commercial operations. A decree of permanent injunction was granted, counterfeit goods were ordered to be destroyed, compensatory damages of ₹2.34 crore and exemplary damages of ₹1 crore were awarded, along with costs. The judgment is significant in trademark infringement jurisprudence for its structured damages framework, integration of proportionality principles, recognition of trade dress protection, and its strong articulation of the public health dimension in cases involving counterfeit medical products.

INDIAN SCENARIO WITH AN OVERVIEW OF MRTP ACT, 1969 Divyansh Singh, L.L.M (CORPORATE LAW)1year, 2nd sem Student (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.16 The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) marked a watershed moment in India’s economic and regulatory history. Enacted in response to the growing concentration of economic power and monopolistic tendencies in the post-independence Indian economy, the MRTP Act sought to prevent monopolies, regulate restrictive and unfair trade practices, and safeguard consumer interests in furtherance of the constitutional mandate under Article 39(b) and (c). This research paper undertakes a comprehensive doctrinal analysis of the MRTP Act, 1969, examining its legislative intent, structural framework, institutional mechanisms, implementation challenges, and eventual repeal upon the enactment of the Competition Act, 2002. Through a critical study of statutory provisions, landmark judicial pronouncements, and the recommendations of the Raghavan Committee (2000), the paper assesses the operational efficacy of the MRTP regime. The analysis highlights how judicial interpretation expanded the scope of restrictive and unfair trade practices, yet the Commission’s limited enforcement powers and absence of deterrent penalties significantly constrained effective regulation. It is argued that these structural and functional limitations, particularly in the context of post-1991 economic liberalization, necessitated the transition to a modern, effects-based competition law framework aligned with international best practices.