CCI Closes Case Against NABARD, Infosys in CBS Procurement; Finds No Abuse or Collusion

April 20, 2026 : The Competition Commission of India has closed proceedings against National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and Infosys Limited, holding that no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position or anti-competitive agreement was made out in relation to procurement of Core Banking Solution (CBS) services for rural cooperative banks.

The order, passed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, came in Case No. 26 of 2025, titled Natural Support Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. NABARD & Infosys Ltd.

Background

The information was filed by Natural Support Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., alleging violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It claimed that NABARD, in collusion with Infosys, imposed restrictive conditions in the 2023 Request for Proposal (RFP), particularly by limiting participation to system integrators authorised by Infosys for its Finacle platform.

The dispute traces back to a 2011 RFP through which Infosys (OEM) and Wipro (SI), along with Tata Consultancy Services (as both OEM and SI), were empanelled for CBS implementation across rural cooperative banks. This arrangement continued through extensions until December 2022, after which Wipro exited and banks continued on Infosys’ Finacle platform.

In October 2023, NABARD floated a fresh RFP for migration from Finacle 7.x to Finacle 10.2.25 for banks already operating on the platform. Eligibility was restricted to Infosys-authorised partners, and a consortium led by Dynacons Systems and Solutions Ltd. was selected.

Relevant Market and Dominance

The Commission defined the relevant market as the “market for procurement of CBS services for rural cooperative banks in India.” It held that NABARD occupies a dominant position in this market owing to its statutory mandate and lack of comparable entities performing similar functions.

No Abuse of Dominance

Despite finding NABARD dominant, the Commission rejected allegations of abuse. It observed that restricting participation to authorised partners of Infosys was justified because:

• The concerned banks were already operating on the Finacle platform
• Upgradation required compatibility, data security, and system integrity
• Only authorised partners have access to proprietary tools and OEM support

The Commission noted that engaging unauthorised vendors could lead to “data corruption, system failure, security breaches, financial burden etc.”

It also emphasised that NABARD did not compel banks to adopt Finacle; rather, banks voluntarily chose to continue with the platform.

No Anti-Competitive Agreement

On the allegation of collusion under Section 3, the Commission held that:

• A procuring authority is entitled to prescribe technical and eligibility criteria
• The continuation of Finacle and related conditions were necessary for operational continuity
• The RFP process was transparent and involved participating banks through a committee-based evaluation

The Commission found no evidence of exclusive dealing, refusal to deal, or bias in favour of Infosys.

It also took note that prior vigilance inquiries and RTI responses did not substantiate the allegations, and related legal challenges had either failed or remained unproven.

Conclusion

Finding no material indicating contravention of Sections 3 or 4, the Commission directed closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.