Beauty pageant under scanner: CCI orders investigation into Mrs India Inc

CCI has ordered a detailed investigation into Mrs India Inc over a former contestant's complaint. The order flags allegedly onerous clauses, undisclosed costs and curbs on participants' professional choices.

In Short

• Contestant said she paid Rs 3,000 registration and later hefty package fees
• Premium package allegedly promised better rankings and international pageant opportunities
• Winner's agreement allegedly sought up to Rs 25 lakh for Mrs Galaxy

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a detailed investigation into Mrs India Inc, a sole proprietorship run by Mohini Sharma, after a former contestant alleged that the beauty pageant organiser imposed restrictive contractual conditions, demanded undisclosed payments and curtailed participants' professional opportunities through one-sided agreements.

The complaint was filed by Rinima Borah Agarwal, a participant and first runner-up in the 2024 edition of the Mrs India Inc beauty pageant, who alleged that the organisation compelled contestants to pay substantial sums at various stages of the competition and sign agreements containing unfair and exploitative provisions.

A coram comprising CCI Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag found a prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, and directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the matter and submit a report within 90 days.

"It is evident from a bare reading of the impugned agreements, which the OP made its participants and winners sign, that the same contain certain onerous terms," the Commission observed.

CONTESTANT ALLEGES HIDDEN COSTS, RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS

According to Agarwal, she paid a registration fee of Rs 3,000 to participate in the competition and was later asked to choose between a Basic Package costing Rs 3.25 lakh and a Premium Package priced at Rs 6.75 lakh for training and grooming.

She alleged that she opted for the Premium Package after being assured that it would significantly improve her chances of ranking among the top contestants and qualifying for international pageants.

After being declared first runner-up and awarded the title of "Mrs India Galaxy", Agarwal claimed she was presented with a separate winners' agreement and asked to pay up to Rs 25 lakh to participate in the international Mrs Galaxy pageant in 2025.

She further alleged that the agreement barred her from participating in any other beauty pageant—as a contestant, consultant, judge, mentor, founder or co-founder—for five years.

ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF MARKET POWER

In her complaint, Agarwal alleged that Mrs India Inc, a sole proprietorship operated by Mohini Sharma, enjoys significant influence in the niche market of beauty pageants for married women because of its association with several leading international "Mrs" pageants.

She claimed the organisation abused its position by imposing restrictive and unfair contractual terms on contestants and winners.

The Commission observed that the relevant market could be defined as the market for beauty pageants for married women in India that enable winners to participate in major international competitions.

While stopping short of making a final determination, the CCI noted that Mrs India Inc appeared to be a prominent player in this market due to its association with major international pageants such as Mrs Globe, Mrs Galaxy, Mrs Earth and Mrs International Summit.

"Based on international franchise holdings, national reach, media and public visibility, longevity and frequency of editions etc., the OP appears to be a dominant player in the delineated relevant market," the Commission said.

CARTEL ALLEGATION NOT ACCEPTED

Agarwal also alleged that winners of certain international pageants were effectively pre-decided through financial arrangements and claimed that Mrs India Inc had entered into a cartel-like arrangement with international organisers.

The Commission, however, declined to accept this allegation at the preliminary stage, noting that no evidence had been placed on record to establish any agreement between Mrs India Inc and international organisers to predetermine winners.

CCI FLAGS SEVERAL CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES

The Commission expressed concern over multiple provisions contained in the agreements signed by participants and winners.

Among the clauses flagged by the CCI were those that:

Prohibited participants and winners from joining, promoting or associating with any other beauty pageant for five years;

Required winners to obtain prior approval before entering into contracts, endorsements, modelling assignments or professional engagements;

Mandated participation in social causes identified by the organiser;

Allowed the organiser to continue using participants' photographs and videos for publicity and promotional purposes free of cost, even after termination of the agreements.

The Commission also noted that contestants were informed about the participants' terms and conditions only shortly before the finale, while the winners' terms and conditions were disclosed after the competition had concluded.

"Such information should have been disclosed to the Informant prior to registration or payment of compulsory package for training and grooming so that she could have taken an informed decision," the order stated.

PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE OUT

The CCI observed that several provisions of the agreements appeared exploitative and potentially amounted to abuse of dominance and anti-competitive conduct.

It held that certain clauses could constitute tie-in and exclusive dealing arrangements under the Competition Act and that some contractual restrictions appeared capable of limiting contestants' ability to offer their services elsewhere.

Finding a prima facie case, the Commission directed the Director General to investigate whether Mrs India Inc's conduct violated competition law and submit its findings within 90 days.

The Commission clarified that its observations are preliminary in nature and do not constitute a final finding on the merits of the case.

- Ends