Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to testing arbitrariness without substituting administrative expertise.

The petitioner, a company providing surveillance and webcasting services, challenged the eligibility conditions of an e-tender dated 03.03.2026 issued for the General Elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, 2026

The impugned conditions required bidders to have experience in executing live web streaming from at least 1,00,000 polling station cameras and 2,500 CCTV cameras in counting centers within the last three years

Additionally, the tender prohibited participation through Joint Ventures or Consortiums

The petitioner contended these conditions were arbitrary, lacked a rational nexus with the tender’s object, and were designed to restrict competition

The respondents maintained the criteria were essential due to the distinct and critical nature of the polling and counting phases

1. Whether the eligibility criteria mandating specific experience in both polling stations and counting centers, alongside the prohibition of consortiums, are arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

2. Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review to modify or quash tender conditions prescribed by administrative authorities in the exercise of their expertise

The court primarily applied the principles of judicial restraint in administrative action as established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, which restricts judicial review to the "manner" of decision-making rather than the merits of the contract

It relied on Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, affirming that the State must be granted "greater latitude" in formulating tender conditions to ensure a contractor’s capacity

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine from Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd., stating the government must have "reasonable play in the joints" and a free hand in setting tender terms unless they are proven to be malicious or purely whimsical

The Court observed that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is extremely narrow

It noted that the tender-floating authority is the best judge of its own requirements and possesses the necessary technical and administrative expertise to frame such conditions

The Court accepted the respondents' justification that polling and counting are distinct phases requiring specific experience to ensure transparency and public confidence

It found no evidence of mala fides, perversity, or bias in the formulation of the criteria

The Court further highlighted that the petitioner had unsuccessfully raised identical challenges before the Calcutta and Gauhati High Courts, which weighed against the petitioner's claim of unreasonableness

Ultimately, the Court held that it cannot strike down terms simply because alternative terms might appear fairer or wiser

The Court affirmed that the authorities are entitled to stipulate preconditions to ensure successful execution of time-bound and sensitive election-related work

All connected interim applications were closed, and no costs were awarded