Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, in E Trav Tech Limited v. Union of India & Others and connected matters [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 656], delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and equality in public procurement. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain set aside the Ministry of External Affairs’ (MEA) tender process for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra (Australia). The Court held that the technical evaluation of bidders suffered from arbitrariness, opacity and irrationality, making the entire evaluation process unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The petitions were filed by E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited, both of whom had participated in the bidding process initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs for providing outsourced consular, passport and visa services at various Indian Missions abroad. The petitioners were disqualified at the technical bid stage after failing to secure the minimum qualifying score of 70 marks, making them ineligible for the opening of their financial bids.
Initially, the petitioners had challenged their disqualification without having access to the detailed evaluation criteria applied by the Technical Evaluation Committees. During earlier litigation, the authorities were directed to furnish parameter-wise marks awarded to each bidder. Upon receiving these details, the petitioners alleged that the evaluation process itself revealed serious inconsistencies, unexplained deductions and discriminatory treatment. According to them, identical proposals submitted for different Missions were awarded significantly different marks despite containing the same supporting documents and information.
The dispute before the High Court therefore extended beyond individual disqualification and raised broader questions regarding the transparency of government tenders. The principal issue was whether public authorities could award technical marks without disclosing objective reasons and whether such opaque evaluation could withstand constitutional scrutiny under Article 14.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that the Ministry of External Affairs had failed to conduct the tender evaluation in a fair, transparent and objective manner. They submitted that although they were eventually supplied with parameter-wise marks following directions issued in earlier proceedings, the authorities never disclosed the reasons or methodology adopted while awarding those marks. Consequently, they remained unable to understand why significant deductions had been made under various evaluation parameters.
The petitioners further contended that the evaluation process revealed a consistent pattern of arbitrariness. They pointed out that identical proposals, supported by the same documents, received substantially different scores across the four Indian Missions. According to them, there was no rational basis for such variations because the information submitted remained unchanged. It was argued that the Technical Evaluation Committees had either applied undisclosed comparative benchmarks or exercised unguided discretion without recording reasons.
The petitioners also asserted that the absence of transparency violated the settled principles governing public procurement. Government contracts, they argued, must be awarded through a process that is fair, non-discriminatory and capable of judicial scrutiny. Since the evaluation lacked objectivity and consistency, the entire technical assessment deserved to be set aside.
In response, the Union Government raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions. It argued that the petitions were barred by the principle of res judicata, contending that similar challenges had already been raised in earlier litigation. According to the Government, the petitioners were attempting to reopen issues that had already attained finality.
On merits, the Government defended the evaluation process by maintaining that the Technical Evaluation Committees had assessed each proposal independently in accordance with the tender conditions. It was submitted that courts should exercise limited judicial review in contractual matters and should not substitute their own assessment for that of expert committees unless the decision-making process was shown to be patently arbitrary or mala fide.
The successful private bidders also opposed the petitions, arguing that the tender process had been completed in accordance with law and that interference at such a late stage would disrupt the provision of important consular services to Indian citizens abroad.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions, the Delhi High Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and proceeded to examine the legality of the technical evaluation process.
The Court held that the present petitions were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It observed that the earlier proceedings concluded before the petitioners had access to the parameter-wise evaluation marks. The subsequent disclosure of those marks pursuant to judicial directions created a fresh cause of action because only thereafter could the petitioners examine whether the evaluation process itself suffered from arbitrariness. Accordingly, the Court held that the present challenge was maintainable.
Turning to the merits, the Division Bench closely examined the parameter-wise marks awarded to the petitioners across the four Missions. The Court found that the petitioners had successfully demonstrated several instances where identical proposals, accompanied by the same supporting documents, had received substantially different marks without any apparent justification.
The Court observed that the Ministry had failed to explain the basis on which these variations had occurred. There was no material showing that the Technical Evaluation Committees had adopted objective standards or recorded reasons for awarding different marks to similar proposals. The absence of any transparent methodology created a serious doubt regarding the fairness of the evaluation process.
The Bench further noted that the petitioners were informed only of the numerical scores obtained under each parameter. They were never provided with any explanation regarding the deductions made or the comparative standards applied during evaluation. Such opacity, according to the Court, deprived the bidders of any meaningful opportunity to understand or challenge the assessment.
The Court emphasised that government tender processes are subject to constitutional scrutiny under Article 14, which mandates fairness, equality and non-arbitrariness in every State action. While courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in commercial decisions involving technical expertise, judicial review remains available where the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory or lacking in transparency.
The Bench observed that public procurement cannot be governed by undisclosed standards or subjective preferences. Technical evaluation committees undoubtedly possess specialised expertise, but such expertise cannot operate in an opaque manner beyond judicial scrutiny. Every bidder participating in a public tender is entitled to expect that evaluation will be conducted on objective, uniform and transparent criteria.
The Court concluded that the technical evaluation in the present case suffered from manifest arbitrariness. The unexplained variations in marking identical proposals, the absence of recorded reasons and the failure to disclose the basis of evaluation rendered the entire assessment legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court held that the parameter-wise marks awarded to the petitioners were vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency, thereby violating the guarantee of equality contained in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Having found the technical evaluation illegal, the Court set aside the entire evaluation process undertaken for all four Indian Missions. As a natural consequence, it also quashed the award of contracts made in favour of the successful private bidders because those contracts were founded upon an invalid evaluation process.
Recognising the importance of uninterrupted consular services for Indian citizens residing abroad, the Court carefully balanced public interest while granting relief. Instead of directing an immediate cessation of services, the Bench permitted the existing service providers to continue operating temporarily until a fresh tender process was completed. This arrangement ensured that passport, visa and consular services would remain available without disruption.
The Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs to issue fresh Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for all four Missions within one month. The new tender process, the Court observed, must be conducted strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of objective, transparent and non-discriminatory evaluation criteria. Once the fresh process is concluded, the contracts are to be awarded to the successful L-1 bidders in compliance with the applicable procurement rules.
The judgment serves as an important reaffirmation of the constitutional principles governing public procurement in India. It reiterates that while the Government possesses considerable discretion in awarding contracts, such discretion must always be exercised fairly, transparently and consistently. Technical expertise cannot become a shield for arbitrary decision-making, and every stage of a public tender must withstand the scrutiny of Article 14. By directing a fresh tender process while simultaneously ensuring continuity of essential public services, the Delhi High Court struck a careful balance between protecting constitutional values and safeguarding administrative efficiency.