How much does a poorly-written order cost?
What opportunity costs do badly written regulatory orders impose on us?
By Natasha Aggarwal and Bhavin Patel
Welcome to The Bridge! Regulatory orders shape markets, govern disputes, and test the rule of law, yet their quality rarely gets the scrutiny it deserves. The Bridge is TrustBridge’s window into the quasi-judicial work of India’s regulators: how they decide, and how they could decide better.
Introduction
What could Grasim Industries Limited (NSE: GRASIM) (“Grasim”) do with Rs. 30.16 crores over 6.14 years?
At a risk-free rate of about 7%, this money would have amounted to about Rs. 45 crore over that duration. Even a boring old fixed deposit with the State Bank of India would have yielded Rs. 13.3 crores in interest. These calculations do not even take into account the legal fees and associated costs of prosecuting a high-stakes regulatory dispute, and the time of the personnel involved. This is time and money that can’t be used for productive purposes.
That’s the price we pay for a poorly drafted regulatory order.
Let that sink in.
Why do we ask such a question? And why do we say this cost is attributable to poor order writing?
Because on May 5, 2026, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the “NCLAT”) set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India (the “CCI”) dated March 16, 2020, in which the CCI had imposed a penalty of Rs. 301.61 crores on Grasim. The NCLAT also directed the CCI to consider the matter afresh.1 According to Grasim’s Annual Report,2 the company had obtained a stay on the operation of the CCI’s order by depositing Rs. 30.16 crores with the NCLAT. This means that for the 6.14 years between the original CCI order and the NCLAT order that remanded it, Grasim would effectively have been unable to productively deploy this sum of Rs. 30.16 crores. Instead of using it to produce more goods, or hire more workers, this amount was locked up so that the penalty might be paid on short notice, if required. Note that the matter has not reached a conclusion yet - the CCI will reconsider the matter, it may well impose a penalty again, and a fresh appeal against that order (and a second appeal, and several interim applications) might be waiting in the wings. But for the moment, let’s think of this as a ‘one order, one appeal’ story.
Could this unproductive, undesirable outcome have been avoided? We apply a subset of ‘Good Order Writing’ indicators developed by TrustBridge to examine whether the initial CCI order might have been better written, and how such problems can be avoided. This subset of indicators forms part of a set of 68 indicators to measure the completeness and quality of regulators’ adjudicatory orders based on our paper.3 These indicators are classified into four overlapping categories: structural, informational, substantive and stylistic, and are assigned weighted scores on a scale of 0 to 1.
We first provide a summary overview of the CCI and NCLAT orders, and then demonstrate how the subset of indicators could have helped avoid this situation. Finally, we examine whether the adoption of such indicators, as well as other tools and practices to assist good order writing, could lead to positive results.
Summary overview of orders
The CCI order4 resulted from an information filing against Grasim and three other entities, alleging that Grasim had abused its dominant position as the country’s largest producer and seller of Viscose Staple Fibre, a violation punishable under S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the “Act”).
The date when the information was filed before the CCI is not available in the CCI’s order. However, the CCI passed an order on November 10, 2016 under S. 26(1) of the Act, directing the Director General (“DG”) to investigate the matter. The DG submitted its investigation report on March 27, 2018. This means that while the gap between the CCI’s and the NCLAT’s order is over six years, the matter as a whole has been in controversy for about a decade.
The CCI order includes a detailed description of the DG’s investigation, and the findings included in its investigation report. It notes that the DG’s report found violations of Ss. 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(d) read with S. 4(1) of the Act, but did not find any information or material in its investigation to indicate that a case was made out under S. 4(2)(e) of the Act against Grasim. Upon a reading of the NCLAT’s order, however, it would appear that the CCI order does not provide a comprehensive, accurate overview of the DG’s findings.
The CCI considered the DG’s report, and forwarded a non-confidential version to the Informant and Grasim so that they could file their suggestions or objections. Grasim’s objections to the DG’s report are described in detail in the CCI order. However, there is no information in the CCI order that suggests Grasim was provided the opportunity for a hearing before the CCI took its decision.
The CCI order responds to Grasim’s submissions, and, on the face of matters, vigorously defends the DG’s report. It eventually agrees with the DG’s findings that Grasim violated Ss. 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(d) read with S. 4(1) of the Act, and imposes a penalty of Rs. 301.61 crores against Grasim.
In its appeal against the CCI’s order, Grasim argued that the CCI had deviated from the findings in the DG’s report, but did not provide Grasim a notice declaring that it proposed to do so, nor did it provide Grasim the opportunity for a fair hearing in which it might present its case. Grasim sought to have the CCI order set aside on this ground of failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice.
The NCLAT considered the effect of two prior decisions of the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal (the “COMPAT”),5 and accepted Grasim’s contention that the CCI could not have passed an order in which it deviated from the DG’s report, without offering Grasim the opportunity to present its case at a fair hearing. It set aside the CCI’s order, and directed it to consider the matter afresh, with the direction that it provide Grasim an opportunity for a hearing “wherever the Commission differs with the findings of the DG”.
Applying ‘Good Order Writing’ indicators
Could this reversal, and the lost opportunity costs of the penalty imposition have been avoided? Our analysis of the order against our benchmarks suggests that there were multiple missing pieces. So yes, these problems could have been avoided had the CCI considered the following indicators at the time of drafting its order:
Is there a list of dates of hearings or a link to this and other procedural information?
Does the order summarise parties’ oral arguments at hearings?
Are the results of the investigation summarised?
Is the analysis well-reasoned?
Does the order cite previous COMPAT, NCLAT, or SC orders?
We expect that the resultant order would have been more complete and more likely to withstand challenge in appeal. The benefits of these indicators are described below.
Conclusion and recommendations
The use of order-writing-assistance methods, such as TrustBridge’s Good Order Writing indicators, could have helped avoid the problem created by the CCI’s order in the Grasim matter, and its remand by the NCLAT. These indicators can be used as part of an ‘Order Review Tool’ (see video below), or even as a simple checklist. We suggest that regulators consider how they could address the demands of order writing as carefully as they consider the requirements of the law applicable to their sector.
Another way to avoid controversies like this would be the development and use of a ‘precedent bank’ that order writers may refer to. Such a precedent bank would have brought the applicable COMPAT orders to the adjudicator’s attention. The CCI may then have conducted proceedings in a different manner, by issuing Grasim a notice and providing them an opportunity for a hearing. Alternatively, the order could have explained why those decisions were not applicable in the present situation, giving it a stronger chance of withstanding challenge in appeal.
We point out the opportunity costs of poor order writing in one instance; but consider what the aggregate value of such practices across regulators would be over the period of a single year, over a few years, or over a decade. And how little in comparison it would take to avoid such costs - LLMs and Generative AI make solutions like the Order Review Tool accessible, and regulators and researchers have the domain expertise to make such tools capable and effective. But first we need to acknowledge the scale of the problem, and open our minds to the possibilities that imaginative solutions can offer.
- The authors are researchers at TrustBridge, and would like to thank Renuka Sane for her suggestions and guidance, and Upasa Borah for her assistance in reviewing the calculations of opportunity costs.
CITATION
Natasha Aggarwal and Bhavin Patel, 2026. “How much does a poorly-written order cost?”, The Bridge, TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation
Thanks for reading The Bridge! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
References
Natasha Aggarwal, Bhavin Patel & Karan Singh, 2025. “A guide to writing good regulatory orders,” Working Papers, Trustbridge Rule of Law Foundation.
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Competition Commission of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Comp. AT 238.
Grasim Industries Limited, Annual Report, available at: https://www.grasim.com/Upload/PDF/grasim-integrated-annual-report-2024-25.pdf
In Re: XYZ and Association of Man Made Fibre Industry of India and others (Case No. 62 of 2016) (CCI Order dated 16 March 2020).
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGoAirlines) v. Competition Commission of India, Appeal No.07/2016.
NCLAT Order dated 5 May 2026 in Grasim Industries Limited v. Competition Commission of India and others (Competition Appeal 13 of 2020).
Annual Report available at: https://www.grasim.com/Upload/PDF/grasim-integrated-annual-report-2024-25.pdf
Natasha Aggarwal, Bhavin Patel & Karan Singh, 2025. “A guide to writing good regulatory orders,” Working Papers, Trustbridge Rule of Law Foundation.
CCI Order dated 16 March 2020 in In Re: XYZ and Association of Man Made Fibre Industry of India and others (Case No. 62 of 2016).
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Competition Commission of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Comp. AT 238; and Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (IndiGoAirlines) v. Competition Commission of India, Appeal No.07/2016.