Age‑Based Tie‑Breaker Discrimination in Tenders Violates Article 14

Introduction

In Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Bombay High Court, 2 April 2025), the petitioner, Mr. Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan, challenged a clause in IOCL’s tender brochure that, in the event of a tie between two equally scored candidates, gives preference to the younger applicant. Mr. Khan and another bidder scored 92.8 marks each for a retail‑outlet contract; the younger bidder was selected under clause 7.2.1(b) of IOCL’s 2022 brochure. The petitioner invoked Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution, claiming that age‑based tie‑breaking is arbitrary and discriminatory.

The respondents included IOCL, its divisional and appellate authorities, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the State of Maharashtra, and the successful bidder. The main issues were (1) whether a tenderer who has participated can challenge published specifications, and (2) whether an age‑based tie‑breaker within an age bracket violates the equality guarantee under Article 14.

Summary of the Judgment

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, per Justice M. S. Karnik, held that clause 7.2.1(b)—preferring the younger candidate in a tie among applicants of the same age‑bracket—was arbitrary and discriminatory, and thus struck it down as violative of Article 14. The Court rejected IOCL’s plea that the petitioner was estopped from objecting after bidding. It permitted IOCL to frame a rational, non‑arbitrary tie‑breaker and remitted the matter for fresh empanelment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Inducare Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CEO (Bombay HC, Dec. 2023): A party who participates in a bidding process without protest cannot later challenge tender conditions.
Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2022 SCC 165): Judicial review of contracts is confined to preventing arbitrariness, unreasonableness, bias or malafides (Wednesbury principle).
Michigan Rubber v. State of Karnataka (2012 8 SCC 216): Emphasises limited interference in tender awards; classification of bidders must follow healthy norms unless malafide.
Commissioner, M.C.D. v. Shashi (Delhi HC 2009): Age alone is not a criterion of merit or competence; discrimination among equally qualified candidates by age fails Article 14.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 1 SCC 1): Classification must rest on real and substantial distinctions with a reasonable nexus to the objective.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018 10 SCC 1) (concurring): Discusses the concept of immutable characteristics under Article 15; though age was not held immutable, the principle aids analysis of status‑based discrimination.

Legal Reasoning

The Court noted that IOCL’s brochure already awarded age‑based marks within three brackets (21–35, 36–50, 51–60). Preferring the younger applicant “within the same bracket” as a tie‑breaker lacks any rational nexus to the object—selecting the best retail‑outlet operator—and treats equals unequally. Under Article 14, classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and bear a just relation to the legislative aim. The tie‑breaker in clause 7.2.1(b) simply picks a younger life‑year without demonstrating how incremental age within a homogeneous group affects fitness to run an outlet. Relying on the Wednesbury standard from Uflex, the bench held the clause manifestly arbitrary. The estoppel argument failed because it is only when a tie materialises that the tie‑breaker operates, so the clause’s fairness can be challenged at that stage.

Impact

This ruling sends a clear signal to public and private entities framing tender rules: any sub‑classification among equally scored bidders must be rationally connected to the object of the exercise. Arbitrary distinctions—especially those invoking bodily attributes such as age—will be vulnerable to judicial review. Tendering authorities will need to devise objective, transparent tie‑breakers (e.g., higher educational qualification, earlier application date, lottery) rather than defaulting to age bias.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection; prohibits arbitrary state action.
Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and legal interests.
Wednesbury Principle: A decision is reviewable only if it is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable authority could have adopted it.
Immutable Characteristics: Personal attributes (race, caste, sex, place of birth) over which one has no control; discrimination on such grounds is constitutionally suspect.
Classification Test: Laws or policies must group persons on an “intelligible differentia” that is reasonably related to the legislative or administrative goal.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in stamping out arbitrariness from procurement processes. By invalidating IOCL’s age‑based tie‑breaker, the Court reaffirmed that equality under Article 14 demands rational, objective criteria—especially when two candidates are on all fours. This decision will guide future tenders to adopt transparent tie‑breakers tied to legitimate operational needs, thereby enhancing fairness and public confidence in administrative procedures.