West Bengal 2026 polls: Calcutta High Court slams Election Commission for being ‘arbitrary’ in grant of surveillance tender

“The act of the respondent authorities by awarding the tender to the other agency by rejecting the technical bid of the petitioners is arbitrary and mala fide, as on one hand, the respondents have taken into consideration the experience of the private respondents of Delhi, and on the other hand, the experience of the petitioners in Puducherry and Daman is not considered,” the court said on March 25.

Justice Krishna Rao heard the matter on March 25.

Underscoring that public interest prevails over private interest, the order added that we refrain from interfering with the work orders only on the ground that the request for proposal is for the public interest, i.e., for the General Election to the West Bengal legislative assembly, 2026.

Background

• The core of the legal battle centered on eligibility criteria Clauses 4(a) and 4(b), which required bidders to have experience in “full state” orders for election web streaming.
• The petitioner, I-Net Secure Labs, alleged that its bid was rejected as “technically not qualified” despite having extensive experience in Puducherry and Daman.
• The petitioners argued that the authorities practiced discrimination by accepting the experience of a rival bidder based on work in Delhi, while rejecting the petitioners’ experience in other Union Territories.

Election Commission’s stand

• Representing the ECI, senior advocate S N Mookherjee submitted that before participation in the tender process, a pre-bid meeting was held on 16th February, 2026, in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and suggested the inclusion of Union Territory in Clause 4(b) and the deletion of Union Territory in the explanation of Clause 4(b).
• He argued that the suggestion of the petitioners was not considered by including the Union Territory in Clause 4(b) and deleting the Union Territory explanation Clause of 4(b).
• He further stated that despite having the knowledge that the petitioners do not have experience in the full three states, experience of Union Territory will not be considered as experience.

Public interest prevails: Order

• It is settled law that while invoking the power of judicial review in matters as to the tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind.
• The evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions, and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters.
• If the decision relating to the award of a contract is bona fide and is in the public interest, the courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out.
• The power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide a contractual dispute.
• The respondent authorities have not treated the petitioners equally to the private respondent with regard to the experience relied on by the petitioners.
• If the petitioners are so advised, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for damages before the appropriate Court in accordance with law.

‘ECI’s case not acceptable’

• The petitioners have disclosed all the documents on which the petitioners, as well as the added respondents, have participated in the tender process.
• After filing the case, the petitioners have changed their mind and not pressed the prayer (b) for setting aside the request for proposal and prayed for allowing the petitioners to participate in the tender process by relaxation of some conditions.
• The respondents have produced their respective work orders issued on 11th March, 2026, and it is the specific submissions that the respondents have started their work in terms of their work orders.
• The work orders relied on by the petitioners are also suspicious, whether it was actually issued on 11th March, 2026, or to make the writ petition infructuous.
• From the record, it revealed that work orders were not uploaded till 18th March, 2026, on the website.
  The Tender process was conducted through an online process.
• All correspondences have also been made online, but have not uploaded the Financial Evaluation and Acceptance of Contract in the eProcurement system till 18th March, 2026.
• The case made out by the respondents, ECI, that work orders have been issued on 11th March, 2026, is not acceptable.