INNOVATIVIEW INDIA vs The Additional chief Electoral officer and

W.P.No.10973 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.10973 of 2026
and WMP N os .11902, 11900 and 11901 of 2026
Innovatiview India Limited
Plot No.A-82, BLK-A, Naraina Ind.Area Phase I
Landmark Jumma Park,
Delhi - 110 028
through its Authorised Representative
Prashant Rathore
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Electoral officer and
Additional secretary to Government
Public (Elections) Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, Tamilnadu.
2. Election commission of India
Rep by its Chief Election Commissioner
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi-110 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
st
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1
respondent in tender document bearing Tender Ref.No.5/2026/900,
______________
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
dated 3.3.2026 and to quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and
unreasonable.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Satish Parasaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr. Arun Karthik Mohan
For Respondent(s):Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan
Standing Counsel
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 undertaking 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.
2.1. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a
company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in
providing advanced surveillance and webcasting systems for
elections and other sensitive events. It possesses extensive
experience in installing and operating IP based HD camera systems
for live monitoring of polling stations across various States and has
______________
Page 2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
the necessary technical capability and infrastructure to undertake
large scale election surveillance projects.
2.2. It is further stated that the respondents propose to
deploy approximately 1,50,000 web based cameras across 75,000
polling stations and 3,744 cameras in counting centres. The
petitioner submitted pre-bid queries requesting that the
requirement relating to prior installation of 2,500 CCTV cameras in
counting centres be dispensed with, since successful execution of
large scale polling station webcasting inherently demonstrates the
technical capability required for installation of cameras within
counting centres, which is comparatively limited in scale and
complexity. The petitioner also requested that consortium
participation be permitted in order to promote wider competition.
2.3. It is averred that the respondents rejected the said
representations through a cryptic response merely stating "Tender
condition confirmed", without furnishing any reasons. The impugned
eligibility conditions are manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate
and operate as an artificial barrier that excludes otherwise
______________
Page 3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
technically competent bidders. The conditions, therefore, lack any
rational nexus with the object of the tender and are violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ
petition.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the impugned eligibility criteria mandating
that a bidder must have executed installation of at least 2,500 CCTV
cameras in counting centres, in addition to having installed live web
streaming from not less than 1,00,000 polling station cameras, is
ex-facie arbitrary and irrational. He added that the eligibility
conditions prescribed in a public tender must bear a rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved and must not be designed in
a manner that artificially restricts competition or excludes otherwise
competent participants without justification.
3.2. The next submission 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
______________
Page 4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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.
3.3. It is further submitted that the respondents ought to
have given due consideration to the pre-bid queries made by the
petitioner, because in respect of similar tender floated for the
election to the legislative assembly constituencies for the State of
Kerala with unreasonable eligibility criteria and conditions, the same
have been withdrawn and the eligibility criteria was appropriately
modified by issuing corrigendum, after the unreasonability of such
conditions was pointed out by the petitioner.
3.4. In effect, it is submitted that the respondents may be
directed to modify the tender conditions and permit participation of
the petitioner.
4.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the requirement that the bidder should have executed live web
______________
Page 5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
streaming from polling stations as well as CCTV recording in
counting halls has been prescribed having regard to the distinct
nature of the two stages of the electoral process. He added that
polling and counting are two separate and critical phases of the
election process and it is desirable that the bidder is experienced in
both. The tender condition was, therefore, framed to ensure that
bidders possess prior experience in handling the specific operational
requirements associated with the conduct of elections. The
experience required is cumulative for the last three years and the
same cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable.
4.2. Refuting the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that tender condition in the State of Kerala has been
modified, it is submitted that the scope of work in Kerala is different
when compared to Tamil Nadu and the tender has been floated
considering the unique needs in this State and no modification is
required.
______________
Page 6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
4.3. He further submitted that the petitioner herein assailed
an identical condition before the High Court of Calcutta and the
same was dismissed, but the said fact was not disclosed by the
petitioner. Likewise, the petitioner also filed similar petition
challenging the eligibility criteria in the Gauhati High Court. No
interim order was passed therein and the said fact is also not
disclosed by the petitioner.
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.
______________
Page 7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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:
“The Bidder should have executed live web streaming
using IP based HD web cameras with 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.
Joint Venture, Consortium, Local Body, and Project
Management Consultancy experience are not
allowed. In case of consortium only prime bidder
experience is allowed.”
7. In the case at hand, the primordial challenge is to the
aforesaid tender conditions on the ground that they are arbitrary,
discriminatory, and unreasonable.
______________
Page 8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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.
(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.
1 (1994) 6 SCC 651
______________
Page 9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
(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.
(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
2 (2012) 8 SCC 216
______________
Page 10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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
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
______________
Page 11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
(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.
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]
______________
Page 12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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
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 , 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
3 (2004) 4 SCC 19
______________
Page 13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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
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
first respondent, have categorically stated that “ the requirement
that the bidder should have executed live web streaming from
______________
Page 14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
polling stations as well as CCTV recording in counting halls has been
prescribed having regard to the distinct nature of the two stages of
the electoral process ” and further emphasised that the bidder
should be experienced in making polling and counting
arrangements.
13. The respondents further stated that “ Webcasting and
camera deployment form an important mechanism for monitoring
the electoral process and ensuring transparency, thereby enhancing
public confidence in the conduct of elections. These arrangements
constitute an essential component of election management, and
challenges of this nature, particularly at the eve of elections, would
seriously disrupt the preparations already undertaken for the
conduct of the election process .”
14. That apart, in the case on hand, it is not in dispute that an
identical challenge made before the High Court of Calcutta by the
petitioner herein has been dismissed.
______________
Page 15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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
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.
______________
Page 16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
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 17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
To:
1. The Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Additional Chief Electoral Officer
and Additional Secretary to Government,
Public (Elections) Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600009.
______________
Page 18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )

W.P.No.10973 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
WP No.10973 of 2026

17.03.2026
______________
Page 19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 05:39:28 pm )