M/s.I-Net Secure Labs Private Limited, vs The Election Commission of India,

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.03.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP No.10784 of 2026
and WMP N os .11708 and 11709 of 2026
I-Net Secure Labs Private Limited,
Rep. By its Director, Haritha G
Old.No.569/New No.914,
Poonamallee High Road,
Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600106.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Chief Electoral Officer
Public (Elections II) Department,
1st Floor, Main Building, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
3. The Additional Chief Electoral Officer
and Additional Secretary to Government,
Public (Elections) Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
Respondent(s)
______________
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the impugned Tender Ref.No.5/2026/900, dated
03.03.2026, issued by the 3rd Respondent in so far as the Eligibility
criteria in Tender Condition 4, Sl. No 1 and Condition 4, Sl. No 5 and
quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to modify
the said tender conditions so as to permit consortium and bring the
turnover criteria in tune with the conditions followed in the previous
tenders and similar tenders in other States, thereby accepting a
cumulative turnover or an average annual turnover of a proportionate
value of the estimate value of the tender
For Petitioner: Mr.Siddharth Mridul
Senior Counsel and
Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham
For Respondent(s): Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
for M/s.G.R.Associates
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Challenging certain conditions imposed in the e-Tender dated
3.3.2026 for Live Webcasting in the Polling Stations on the day of
Polling and Recording on the day of Counting for the General
Elections to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, 2026, the present writ
petition is filed.
______________
Page 2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
2.1. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a
company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in
providing large-scale election webcasting and surveillance services
across India and has substantial experience in executing similar
assignments in several States, including Tamil Nadu, and has
cumulatively deployed more than 1,80,000 cameras for polling
station webcasting and more than 8,000 CCTV cameras in counting
centres over the past seven years.
2.2. It is further stated that the impugned tender prescribes
highly restrictive eligibility conditions which effectively exclude the
petitioner and several other technically competent bidders from
participating in the tender. The tender mandates that bidders must
possess an average annual turnover of Rs.100 Crores during the
last three financial years and also prohibits participation through
Joint Venture or Consortium. The petitioner submits that these
conditions are arbitrary, disproportionate and contrary to
established procurement norms.
______________
Page 3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
2.3. It is averred that the estimated value of the project is
approximately Rs.120 Crores, whereas the prescribed turnover
requirement is Rs.100 Crores average annual turnover, which is
excessive and inconsistent with prevailing procurement guidelines.
Further, previous election webcasting tenders in Tamil Nadu and
other States have permitted consortium participation and adopted
more reasonable turnover criteria. Despite the petitioner submitting
representations and pre-bid queries requesting rationalisation of the
turnover requirement and permission for consortium participation,
the respondents rejected the same mechanically without assigning
any reasons. Hence this Writ Petition.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the eligibility criteria stipulating
requirement of Rs.100 Crores average annual turnover is
disproportionate to the nature and scope of the project and is,
therefore, liable to be struck down. The said condition restricts
technically competent persons from participating in the tender
process, merely on financial criteria, is, therefore, violative of the
principles of natural justice and the principles enshrined in Article
______________
Page 4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
14 of the Constitution of India, by destroying the level playing field
among the technically qualified persons as the financial eligibility
requirement of Rs.100 Crores average annual turnover has no
rational nexus to the object of the present tender.
3.2. It is further submitted that the impugned turnover criteria
cannot be made applicable to the technically qualified MSME entities
and the petitioner being a technically qualified MSME entity, it
cannot be excluded from participation solely on the basis of
disproportionately high turnover criteria alone.
3.3. The next plank of argument of learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner is that the impugned condition prohibiting
consortiums is highly restrictive and such restriction would only
allow one or two entities in the industry to be benefitted by the
tender process and eliminating almost all competitors. In other
words, he submitted that the impugned tender conditions appear to
be tailor-made to restrict participation to a very small number of
participants, thereby defeating the objective of competitive
tendering.
______________
Page 5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
3.4. It is further submitted that in the Assam Elections, 2026
and West Bengal Elections, 2026, the turnover requirement is much
less compared to Tamil Nadu. For Assam Elections, the annual
turnover stipulated is minimum Rs.40 Crores and for West Bengal
the turnover stipulated is cumulative turnover of Rs.150 crores for
last three financial years and, therefore, there is gross
discrimination.
3.5. In effect, it is submitted that the third respondent may
be directed to modify the tender conditions so as to permit
consortium and bring the turnover criteria in tune with the
conditions imposed in the previous tenders and similar tenders in
other States.
4.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that compared to the earlier tender issued for the 2024 elections,
the scale of work has increased substantially. In earlier elections,
webcasting facility was proposed in 45,000 polling stations,
______________
Page 6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
whereas, for the present elections, webcasting facility is proposed in
approximately 75,032 polling stations with two cameras each,
besides cameras required at counting centres.
4.2. It is further submitted that the successful bidder is also
required to provide one personnel at each polling station, i.e.,
75,032 personnel have to be deployed for this purpose and,
therefore, the bidder should possess the capacity to procure, supply
and install the large number of cameras and related equipment at
short notice, apart from mobilizing the necessary manpower and
internet connectivity infrastructure for the same.
4.3. It is also submitted that the restriction imposed on the
participation of the consortium is well-reasoned, because there is
limited time available for deployment and it would be ideal to
require the bidders themselves to possess the requisite experience
and capacity to execute the work independently. In a consortium
arrangement, the responsibilities are shared between multiple
entities and any dispute arising between the consortium members
may adversely affect the timely execution of the work.
______________
Page 7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
4.4. It is also contended that the tender conditions have been
framed and upgraded based on the experience gained in the
conduct of past elections and are not tailored to suit the individual
requirement of any particular bidder. The requirements in each
State vary depending upon its peculiar circumstances, including the
number of polling stations, geographical spread and administrative
considerations. Any alteration of the eligibility conditions at this
stage would have a ripple effect on the tender process and would
open a Pandora’s box of competing claims and commercial
considerations.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side and perused
the documents filed in support of this petition.
6. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it is apposite
to refer to the tender conditions which are challenged by the
petitioner hereunder:
“(i) The Bidder should have executed live web
streaming using IP based HD web cameras with
______________
Page 8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
audio & video from multiple locations, in not less
than 1,00,000 cameras for web streaming at Polling
Stations in India and 2,500 CCTV cameras for
counting in counting halls cumulatively on behalf of
Election Commission of India during the Last 3 Years
as on date of notice inviting tender.
(ii) The Bidder should have an average annual
turnover of Rs.100 Crores and above, in the last
three audited financial years (2022-23, 2023-24 &
2024-25).”
7. In the case at hand, the primordial challenge is to the
aforesaid two tender conditions on the ground that they are
arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable.
8. In an epoch-making judgment in the case of Tata Cellular
1
v. Union of India , the Supreme Court delineated the scope of
judicial review in tender/contract matters as under:
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
1 (1994) 6 SCC 651
______________
Page 9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but
merely reviews the manner in which the decision was
made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct
the administrative decision. If a review of the
administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the necessary
expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot
be open to judicial scrutiny because the
invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.
Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender
or award the contract is reached by process of
negotiations through several tiers. More often than
not, such decisions are made qualitatively by
experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract.
In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in
an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative
sphere. However, the decision must not only be
tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out
above) but must be free from arbitrariness not
affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
______________
Page 10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy
administrative burden on the administration and lead
to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.”
[emphasis supplied]
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India)
2
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , held thus:
“23. From the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in
action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence
and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These
actions are amenable to the judicial review only to
the extent that the State must act validly for a
discernible reason and not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds
of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within
the purview of the executive and the courts hardly
have any role to play in this process except for
2 (2012) 8 SCC 216
______________
Page 11 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
striking down such action of the executive as is
proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the
Government acts in conformity with certain healthy
standards and norms such as awarding of contracts
by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the
interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a
tender document and awarding a contract,
greater latitude is required to be conceded to
the State authorities unless the action of the
tendering authority is found to be malicious
and a misuse of its statutory powers,
interference by courts is not warranted ;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for
tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the
contractor has the capacity and the resources
to successfully execute the work ; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act
reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding
contract, here again, interference by court is very
restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental
right to carry on business with the Government.
______________
Page 12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone; or whether the process adopted or
decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the
court can say: “the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have reached”?
and
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the
negative, then there should be no interference under
Article 226.”
[emphasis supplied]
The Supreme Court emphatically held that greater latitude is
required to be given to the authorities and that certain
preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to
______________
Page 13 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to
successfully execute the work.
10. In Directorate of Education and others v. Educomp
3
Datamatics Ltd and others , while examining a tender notice which
stipulated turnover of Rs.20.00 Crores as a condition of eligibility,
the Supreme Court held that the Government must have a freehand
in stipulating the terms of the tender and that it must have
reasonable play in the joints as a concomitant necessary for an
administrative body in administrative sphere. The winged words of
the Apex Court in this regard are reproduced herein under:
“12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that
the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to
judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of
contract. That the Government must have a free
hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must
have reasonable play in its joints as a
necessary concomitant for an administrative
body in an administrative sphere . The courts
would interfere with the administrative policy
decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala
fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic
3 (2004) 4 SCC 19
______________
Page 14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
adjustments which may be called for by the
particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike
down the terms of the tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms
in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.
The courts can interfere only if the policy decision is
arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.”
[emphasis supplied]
11. The law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions adumbrates
that the scope of judicial review in tender process is extremely
limited. The tender floating authority is the best judge of its
requirements and unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of
the tendering authority is alleged, the court’s interference should be
minimal.
12. The respondents, in their written note endorsed by the
third respondent, have categorically stated that the scale of work
when compared to the elections of 2024 has substantially
increased. It is averred therein that “ webcasting is now proposed in
approximately 75,032 polling stations with two cameras each,
resulting in installation of nearly 1,50,000 cameras across the
______________
Page 15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
State, apart from cameras required at counting centres ”. The
requirement has grossly increased from the previous requirement of
one camera each in 45,000 polling stations.
13. That apart, the asseverations are to the effect that the
“ successful bidder is required to provide one personnel at each
polling station, totalling approximately 75,032 personnel to be
deployed for the purpose. The bidder must therefore possess the
capacity to procure, supply and install the large number of cameras
and related equipment at short notice, apart from mobilizing the
necessary manpower and internet connectivity infrastructure for the
same ”.
14. On the issue of restriction on participation of consortiums,
it is stated that “ the responsibilities are shared between multiple
entitled and any default on the part of one partner, or any dispute
arising between the consortium members, may adversely affect the
timely execution of the work. ..... Having regard to the time-bound
and sensitive nature of election-related activities, it was therefore
considered appropriate to require that the bidder/prime bidder itself
______________
Page 16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
possess the necessary technical capability, experience and
resources to execute the work without dependence on consortium
partners .”
15. On considering the aforesaid averments in the light of the
submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
we find no shred of material to prove arbitrariness, perversity, mala
fide or bias that would warrant judicial interference. When the
respondents have categorically averred that the tender is floated
having regard to the time-bound and sensitive nature of election-
related activities, and nothing in rebuttal is produced by the
petitioner, we do not find any merit in the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, we are conscious of
the ruling of the Apex Court to the effect that the tender floating
authority is empowered to stipulate certain preconditions or
qualifications to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the
resources to successfully execute the work.
16. This Court is of the view that the conditions of the tender
cannot be altered/modified to make it suitable to the petitioner, as
______________
Page 17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
the best person to frame the terms and conditions of the tender is
the tender making authority, who has the necessary technical and
administrative expertise.
17. In view of the aforesaid finding arrived at, we are not
delving into the other authorities cited across the bar on either side.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim
applications stand closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
17.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
______________
Page 18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
To:
1. The Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Chief Electoral Officer
Public (Elections II) Department,
1st Floor, Main Building, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
3. The Additional Chief Electoral Officer
and Additional Secretary to Government,
Public (Elections) Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
______________
Page 19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10784 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
WP No.10784 of 2026

17.03.2026
______________
Page 20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )