Google has filed a complaint with the High Court, alleging that the Director General’s (CCI’s investigative arm) conclusions, which contained business-sensitive information about Google, were leaked to various media sources by CCI.
The Times of India, Economic Times, Reuters, and other major media reported about the DG Report on September 18, 2021, before it was issued to the Petitioners, claiming to have “seen” and “exclusively studied” the almost 750-page-long DG Report, according to the case filed by Google.
According to Google, these reports cite information that was protected from exposure in the non-confidential version of the DG Report.
Google also stated that they have not yet received the DG report.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed Google’s argument that the competition watchdog leaked an adverse report from its probe against the internet giant in a competition matter.
CCI’s Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman testified that the organisation had not released any confidential information and that Google if it was aggrieved, should pursue media firms that published the report or its contents.
He resented such accusations being levelled against a government agency without any explanation as to how they were made.
Only CCI had access to the private material, according to Google’s Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi.”No one else can send it to a third party except CCI,” he stated.
Justice Rekha Palli finally deferred the case until Monday for a further hearing.
“The petitioners’ right to conduct business is severely harmed by the unlawful disclosure of the DG Report and Respondent No. 1’s (CCI’s) failure to maintain confidentiality, and renders its rights of defence and due process redundant in proceedings before Respondent No. 1 and the DG,” the petition said.
Damage to a party’s reputation is immediate and far-reaching, especially for firms like Google, according to Article 21 of the Constitution, and damage to a party’s reputation is immediate and far-reaching, according to the plea.
CCI is looking at a case from 2019 in which Google used its dominant position with Android to ensure its control over the Playstore.