India antitrust probe links Tata Steel, JSW to alleged steel cartel via WhatsApp chats

India’s competition watchdog has found evidence suggesting four major steelmakers — Tata Steel, JSW Steel, state-run Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd (RINL) — coordinated pricing plans and production cuts over multiple years, according to a confidential antitrust investigation report.

The investigation is among the most significant competition cases in India’s steel sector and could expose firms and senior executives to heavy financial penalties under India’s antitrust law.

Report flags price coordination and supply control (2018–2023)

The investigation report alleges the four companies coordinated between 2018 and 2023, including by sharing market-sensitive pricing information and aligning their market actions.

The report, drafted in April 2025, said there was “enough circumstantial evidence” of coordinated conduct among the firms.

According to commodities consultancy BigMint, the four steelmakers together account for about 44.4% of India’s steel market.

WhatsApp chats seized in raids central to evidence

The report cited dozens of WhatsApp chats seized during industry raids in 2022, including groups such as:

• “Friends of Steel”
• “Tycoons”
• “Steel Live Market”

Investigators said discussions in these groups often preceded, or aligned closely with, official price revisions announced later by the companies.

Production cuts flagged during 2020–21

The report also pointed to alleged supply tightening. It found the companies reduced production by an estimated 16% to 22% during 2020–21, which investigators said may have tightened supply during periods of elevated demand.

Companies face potential heavy penalties

Under India’s competition law, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can impose penalties of up to three times profit or 10% of annual turnover for each year of wrongdoing, depending on the nature and duration of the violation.

The watchdog has also sought financial information from the companies, which is typically used to calculate possible penalties.

Tata Steel denies wrongdoing

Tata Steel said it categorically denies wrongdoing, and that it determines pricing independently based on market conditions and business considerations. The company said it would submit detailed responses to the watchdog.

JSW Steel, SAIL and RINL did not issue an immediate response in the report context, while the investigation documents note that executives denied wrongdoing during the proceedings.

Why This Matters

Steel is a foundational input for infrastructure, real estate and manufacturing, and any sustained cartel-like conduct can ripple across the economy — affecting construction costs, government project budgets and consumer inflation.

The case is also a major example of regulators relying on digital evidence such as WhatsApp messages in high-profile competition proceedings involving large corporates.

Summary

• A competition watchdog report links Tata Steel, JSW Steel, SAIL and RINL to alleged coordinated pricing and supply control.
• The report alleges cartel-like conduct during 2018–2023, citing WhatsApp chats seized in 2022 raids.
• Investigators flagged estimated production reductions of 16%–22% during 2020–21.
• Tata Steel denied wrongdoing; the other companies did not issue an immediate response in the report context.

FAQs

Q1: Which steel companies are named in the alleged cartel probe?

Tata Steel, JSW Steel, SAIL and RINL were named in the investigation report.

Q2: What evidence is the watchdog relying on?

The report cites WhatsApp chat groups seized during 2022 raids and analyses pricing and production patterns.

Q3: What period does the report cover?

For the four major firms, the report alleges coordination between 2018 and 2023.

Q4: What penalties could the firms face?

Under the law, penalties can be up to three times profit or 10% of annual turnover, depending on the violation.

Q5: What happens next?

Companies can submit objections and financial data before a final order is issued. A final decision can be challenged through appellate mechanisms.