Courts cannot interfere with tender eligibility criteria unless they are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or discriminatory.

The petitioner challenged the eligibility criteria in a Request for Proposal (RFP) dated February 9, 2026, issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, for surveillance systems (Web Streaming and CCTV) for the 2026 Legislative Assembly Elections.

Specifically, Clause 4(a) and 4(b) required bidders to have cumulative experience of 1,30,000 cameras for polling stations and at least 3,000 CCTV cameras for counting centers across three full state orders within the last three financial years.

The petitioner submitted pre-bid queries requesting a relaxation of the counting-center experience, arguing it created an artificial entry barrier.

Despite a corrigendum issued on February 20, 2026, the respondents maintained the original experience requirements.

The petitioner alleged the conditions were "tailor-made" to favor specific bidders.

1. Whether the eligibility criteria regarding prior experience in counting-center CCTV installations were arbitrary, discriminatory, or designed to create a monopoly.

2. Whether the Court can interfere with the technical terms and conditions of a government tender prescribed by the tendering authority.

The Court relied on the principle that the Government must have a "free hand" in setting tender terms, and judicial interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides.

It cited Airport Authority of India vs. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research (CAPSR) & Ors. (2022), which established that courts cannot substitute their own view of "fairer" terms for those of the authority.

The court distinguished Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), noting that while territorial restrictions on eligibility are irrational, experience requirements related to the scale of the project are generally valid.

The Court reasoned that the scale of the West Bengal elections—comprising 80,681 polling booths and 108 counting centers with 421 halls—justified the stringent experience requirements for both polling and counting locations.

The Court found the petitioner’s reliance on a modified tender from Kerala misplaced, as the petitioner’s proposed relaxations (400 cameras) were significantly lower than even the modified Kerala standards.

Regarding the allegation of "tailor-made" conditions, the Court noted the petitioner failed to name the specific favored parties.

Furthermore, the fact that four other bidders successfully met the criteria suggested the requirements were not impossible or designed for a single entity.

The Court concluded that monitoring counting centers is a distinct and critical task; therefore, requiring specific experience in that area was a technical decision within the authority's domain.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the prayer for a stay on the order was refused.

The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with the wisdom of the tendering authority in prescribing technical qualifications.