It is not an unreasonable expectation that the logic of a court verdict, particularly one tied to a major consumer-interest issue, should be easily decipherable by an informed citizen. This expectation becomes even more relevant when the ruling is connected to the ongoing sugar controversy, a matter that has affected every household for years.
The story begins in 2019, when, following public uproar over soaring sugar prices, the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) launched an inquiry against the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) and 84 sugar mills nationwide. The CCP accused the industry of violating Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2010, which prohibits cartelization and other anticompetitive practices harmful to consumers.
After nearly two years of investigation, the inquiry culminated in August 2021 in a split decision by a four-member CCP bench. Two members – including the then chairperson – found the mills guilty of collusive conduct. The other two members called for a fresh inquiry. This deadlock prompted the chairperson to exercise what she considered her lawful authority: casting a deciding vote in favour of the first opinion, resulting in a multibillion-rupee fine on the mills. The use of a casting vote in a quasi-judicial proceeding immediately triggered legal controversy.
The sugar industry challenged the decision before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT). In May 2025, the tribunal ruled that the chairperson did not have the authority to cast a deciding vote in quasi-judicial matters. CAT set aside the CCP’s decision and ordered a fresh hearing by a member who had not been part of the original opinions. It instructed that the matter be decided preferably within 90 days.
It is important to recall the composition of CAT as prescribed under the Competition Act: a chairperson who has been a judge of the Supreme Court or a retired chief justice of a high court, and two technical members with expertise in economics, law, finance, trade or accountancy. This composition is meant to ensure a balance of legal and technical competence in reviewing highly specialized competition cases.
The industry, unsatisfied with CAT’s ruling, took the matter to the Supreme Court. On September 18, 2025, a two-member bench issued a judgment that both clarified and complicated the matter. The court upheld CAT’s finding that the chairperson’s exercise of a casting vote in adjudicatory proceedings violated the constitutional requirement of a fair trial. However, it simultaneously set aside the part of CAT’s order that directed who should rehear the case. Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to CAT itself, ordering it to decide the issue afresh within 90 days of receiving the order.
This created interpretive confusion. Different media outlets reported the judgment in conflicting ways. One newspaper claimed the Supreme Court had effectively authorised the CCP chairperson to rehear the case. Another publication reported that the SC had set aside the CCP’s Rs44 billion fine on the sugar mills entirely. The lack of clarity in media reporting contributed to public uncertainty about what had actually been decided and what it meant for consumer protection.
The sugar industry’s argument before the Supreme Court centred on the claim that a casting vote in a quasi-judicial proceeding violated natural justice, due process and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. In contrast, the CCP’s counsel argued that CAT had already remanded the matter in a way that ensured fairness, and that no further intervention was required from the Supreme Court.
Despite this, the court proceeded to address two key questions: whether the CCP chairperson could legally exercise a casting vote in a quasi-judicial proceeding, and whether doing so would undermine Article 10-A or violate principles of fairness.
In its judgment, the court emphasised the sanctity of fair trial and impartial adjudication, going as far as to quote historical and religious examples. Notably, it referenced Emperor Jehangir, recounting the well-known anecdote in which the emperor offered his own life as recompense when the empress accidentally killed a laundress’s husband. The story was invoked to highlight the importance of impartial justice and the principle that adjudication must be free of personal interests or institutional bias.
The court concluded that Section 24(5) of the Competition Act – under which the CCP chairperson believed she had the authority to exercise a casting vote – applied only to administrative or internal matters of the commission, not to quasi-judicial or adjudicatory proceedings. It held that extending the casting vote provision to judicial decisions would violate Article 10-A as well as broader principles of fairness.
Notably, however, the judgment did not address the chairperson’s detailed reasoning from the 2021 CCP decision. In her written note, she argued that she was fully aware of her fiduciary and statutory duties and believed that the deadlock needed to be resolved in the interest of justice and public interest. She invoked both the spirit of Section 24 and the purpose of the Competition Act, asserting that procedural technicalities should not impede the commission’s ability to carry out its mandate. According to her, exercising the casting vote was necessary to prevent paralysis of decision-making in a matter involving major public interest.
Seven years after the CCP initiated action against the sugar mills, the entire process has drifted far from reaching a final resolution. What began as a consumer-driven inquiry into alleged cartelisation – a matter with immediate implications for household budgets – has transformed into a long, expensive judicial saga. Substantial public money has been spent on investigations, hearings, and appeals, yet the case remains in limbo. Consumers, the very stakeholders the law seeks to protect, are still waiting for closure.
The broader question now is not merely about the legality of a casting vote. It is about the effectiveness of Pakistan’s competition enforcement system and the cost of prolonged institutional deadlock. As the case is remanded once again, it is essential to ask: how can consumer protection be strengthened if critical market manipulation cases cannot reach timely and clear conclusions?
The writer works on consumer protection policy and regulations, and is a member of the 19-member advisory council of Consumer International. He can be reached at: [email protected]
