The Delhi High Court has directed the Central government and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to file their replies to Apple Inc.’s plea challenging an audit order issued by the competition watchdog. The matter relates to the CCI’s ongoing scrutiny of Apple’s business practices in India, particularly concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct within its app ecosystem.

Background of the Apple–CCI Dispute

Apple had approached the Delhi High Court after the CCI ordered a special audit of the company’s financial records as part of an investigation under the Competition Act. The probe stems from complaints alleging that Apple abused its dominant position by imposing restrictive app store policies, including mandatory use of its in-app payment system and commission structures imposed on developers.

Apple Questions Scope of Audit Powers

In its petition, Apple has reportedly argued that the audit order is excessive and beyond the scope of the CCI’s statutory powers. The company is understood to have raised concerns over confidentiality, proportionality, and the relevance of the financial data sought by the regulator, stating that such an audit could expose sensitive commercial information.

Centre and CCI Asked to Clarify Stand

The High Court has now asked both the Centre and the CCI to formally respond, indicating that it wants clarity on whether the audit order aligns with existing competition law provisions. The court’s directive suggests a careful balancing act between regulatory oversight and protection of corporate rights.

Broader Impact on Big Tech Regulation

Legal experts say the case could have wider implications for how Indian regulators oversee global technology firms. A ruling on the extent of CCI’s audit powers may set an important precedent for future antitrust investigations involving Big Tech companies operating in India.

What Lies Ahead

The matter is expected to be heard further once responses from the Centre and the CCI are placed on record. Until then, the High Court has not reportedly stayed the investigation, leaving room for continued regulatory action depending on judicial interpretation.