In this paper the authors will delve into the jurisprudence behind the goal of competition law in India with respect to Structuralist School of thought and Chicago School of Thought. In the recent developments in The Competition Act, 2002 and influential scholarly debates around goals of competition law, Consumer Welfare as the only goal for competition law is a very vague and a complex method of approach. The origin of such jurisprudence comes from two main school of thoughts, namely, the Structuralist School of thought (Harvard) and Chicago School of thought. The former supports the structure to have multiple competitors in the market to avoid monopoly or oligopoly whereas the latter speaks highly of profit maximisation which leads to consumer welfare or wellbeing through its services. The authors will take into consideration of domestic and international courts’ interpretation and their inclination towards deeming consumer welfare as the focal goal of competition law. The highlights of above-mentioned schools of thought can be seen in the case of Google and its interpretation in the two jurisdictions: the USA and the EU. Bringing to light, the difference in the schema of interpretation of the goals of competition law within their respective market structures. An understanding of the development of Indian Competition Law and the holdings of other jurisdictions enable us to propose a juxtaposition of such goals in India- taking into account the the market and economical structures- whether a more suited theory could be employed in the Indian context.