Judicial Restraint in Election-Tech Tenders: Upholding Counting-Centre CCTV Experience as a Rational Eligibility Requirement
1. Introduction
This decision of the Calcutta High Court (Krishna Rao, J.) in W.P.O. No. 89 of 2026 concerns a challenge to tender eligibility
conditions issued by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, for procurement of an agency to provide surveillance and live web
streaming services (audio/video/CCTV/recording/viewing) for the West Bengal Legislative Assembly General Election, 2026.
The petitioner, M/s Innovatiview India Limited, sought quashing of RFP No. CEOWB/2026/e-tender/002 dated 09.02.2026,
contending that the experience criteria under the heading “Bidder’s Experience” (Clause 4(a) and 4(b)) were unduly
restrictive and allegedly “tailor-made” to benefit select bidders.
Key parties
- Petitioner: M/s Innovatiview India Limited (through representative Ashish Painuly)
- Respondents: The Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal & another
Core issue
Whether the Court should interfere (in writ jurisdiction) with tender eligibility criteria requiring, inter alia,
prior experience of installing/implementing at least 3000 CCTV cameras in counting (counting centres/halls) as part of election
web-streaming work, where the petitioner claimed substantial polling-station webcasting experience but sought relaxation of the counting-centre
requirement.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the tender conditions. It held, in substance, that:
-
Tender terms are primarily within the domain of the tendering authority; judicial review is limited and lies only where the conditions are
arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or biased.
-
The challenged requirement of experience relating to counting-centre CCTV/web streaming was supported by operational needs disclosed in the RFP
(polling stations plus counting centres/halls and other election-security monitoring points).
-
The petitioner’s reliance on a Kerala tender modification did not establish arbitrariness, especially because the petitioner’s proposed relaxation
(down to “one work order” or “400 cameras”) was not comparable to the scale reflected even in the Kerala modifications.
-
The petitioner’s allegation of “tailor-made” conditions lacked supporting particulars (including failure to identify the alleged favoured bidders).
-
The Supreme Court decision relied on by the petitioner (VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & Anr.) was
distinguishable because that case involved a geographically restrictive/irrational criterion (supply to Chhattisgarh State agencies), unlike the
present criterion which required relevant technical experience in India.
After pronouncement, the petitioner sought a stay; the Court refused.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The petitioner cited this decision to argue that restrictive tender conditions may violate the freedom to carry on trade/business under
Article 19(1)(g), particularly when conditions irrationally confine competition.
The High Court carefully distinguished it on facts and principle:
-
In Vinishma Technologies, the eligibility condition required prior supplies worth a threshold amount specifically to
Chhattisgarh State Government agencies within the last three financial years—effectively creating a locality-based barrier.
-
The Supreme Court considered such confinement as irrational/disproportionate to procurement objectives and inconsistent with open competition.
-
In the present case, the West Bengal RFP did not restrict experience to West Bengal. It required execution experience
“in India” for election web streaming and counting-centre CCTV, thereby tying eligibility to functional/technical capability rather
than geography.
Thus, the High Court treated Vinishma Technologies as a caution against irrational, protectionist, or geographically exclusionary criteria,
but not as authority to strike down demanding technical requirements that are demonstrably connected to the scope of work.
The respondents relied on this decision to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review over tender conditions.
The High Court applied this precedent as the governing framework:
-
The State and its instrumentalities enjoy a “free hand” in setting tender terms.
-
Courts do not substitute their view merely because alternative terms may appear “fairer, wiser or more logical”.
-
Interference is warranted only upon a showing of arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or bias.
This precedent supplied the doctrinal basis for the High Court’s refusal to micro-manage the technical/experience thresholds of an election-critical
procurement.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
(A) The Court’s approach: deference plus rationality check
The Court adopted a restrained administrative-law posture: it did not ask whether the eligibility thresholds were the “best” or “most competitive,”
but whether they were irrational or legally tainted. In doing so, it performed a “rational nexus” assessment between the experience
demanded and the operational requirements stated in the RFP.
(B) Why counting-centre CCTV experience was treated as materially relevant
A central plank of the petitioner’s case was that polling-station webcasting experience necessarily demonstrates capacity for counting-centre CCTV, so
the 3000-camera counting requirement creates an “artificial entry barrier.”
The Court rejected that equivalence, implicitly accepting the tendering authority’s position that counting-centre operations involve distinct planning
and execution demands. It noted the disclosed scale and configuration:
- Polling stations: 80,681
- Counting centres: 108
- Counting halls: 421
- Other monitoring points mentioned: checkposts, FSV, QRT vehicles (as per ECI instructions)
On these facts, the Court accepted that requiring prior counting-centre CCTV execution experience (3000 cameras) was a procurement choice tied to
election integrity, surveillance, and operational risk-management—therefore not facially arbitrary.
(C) Treatment of pre-bid suggestions and the Kerala tender comparison
The petitioner invoked the example of a similar Kerala election tender where eligibility conditions were modified after pre-bid queries. The Court
treated this as insufficient to compel similar relaxation in West Bengal:
-
Different States may have different operational realities; West Bengal’s tender recorded its own scale and needs.
-
Even in Kerala, counting-camera experience was not eliminated; rather, it remained in the modified options (with substantial numbers).
-
The petitioner’s proposal (down to one counting-centre work order or 400 cameras) was not comparable to the Kerala modifications (which still
contemplated much higher counting-camera experience).
The Court thereby affirmed a key procurement principle: pre-bid consultations inform but do not bind the tendering authority.
(D) Pleading and proof of mala fides / “tailor-made” conditions
The petitioner alleged the criteria were designed to benefit select bidders. The Court found the allegation unsupported, highlighting:
- The petitioner did not identify the alleged favoured bidders.
- The petitioner’s own pre-bid request effectively acknowledged a gap in its counting-centre experience.
This reflects a practical evidentiary threshold in tender challenges: serious allegations like mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, not by
conjecture.
(E) Non-participation in the tender
The petitioner did not submit a bid due to ineligibility. While the judgment does not frame this as a strict bar, the reasoning shows that where a
bidder’s challenge is essentially an attempt to rewrite eligibility to fit its profile—without demonstrating arbitrariness or illegality—courts are
reluctant to intervene.
3.3 Impact
(A) For future election-technology procurements
-
The decision supports higher experience thresholds in election surveillance/webcasting tenders where authorities can justify them by
reference to scale, complexity, and integrity concerns.
-
It provides comfort to election authorities that counting-centre monitoring can be treated as a distinct operational competency deserving a separate
experience benchmark.
(B) For tender litigation strategy
-
Allegations of “tailor-made” conditions must be backed by specific facts (e.g., market structure, identifying likely beneficiaries,
demonstrating exclusivity not justified by project needs).
-
Reliance on “another State modified a tender” is unlikely to succeed unless the challenger proves functional equivalence and disproportionality in
the impugned State’s requirements.
(C) Doctrinal reinforcement
The ruling reinforces the judicial-review baseline: courts do not redesign tender conditions; they police legality—arbitrariness, discrimination,
mala fides, and bias—consistent with Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research (CAPSR) & Ors..
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- RFP (Request for Proposal)
- A procurement document inviting bidders to propose a technical and financial solution for a specified project.
- Eligibility criteria / “Bidder’s Experience”
- Minimum past-performance requirements a bidder must satisfy before its bid is considered.
- Corrigendum
- An official amendment/clarification issued to modify tender terms after publication (often following pre-bid queries).
- Writ jurisdiction (tender matters)
-
The High Court’s power to review state action for legality. In tender cases, review is narrow: courts intervene only for arbitrariness,
discrimination, mala fides, bias, or violation of statutory/constitutional limits.
- Article 19(1)(g)
- The constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Arbitrariness / mala fides / bias
-
- Arbitrariness: a condition with no rational connection to the project’s objective or which is manifestly unreasonable.
- Mala fides: bad faith—using power for an improper purpose (e.g., to favour a particular bidder).
- Bias: decision-making influenced by partiality rather than objective criteria.
- L1 rate
- The lowest price quoted by a technically qualified bidder.
5. Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision establishes and applies a clear principle for election-related public procurement:
courts will not interfere with technically demanding tender eligibility conditions—such as prior counting-centre CCTV experience—when the
authority demonstrates a rational connection to the project’s scale and integrity needs, and when allegations of “tailor-made” criteria are not
pleaded with particulars.
By distinguishing VINISHMA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & Anr. and anchoring its approach in
Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research (CAPSR) & Ors., the Court reinforces the modern tender-law
posture: judicial review protects legality, not bidder convenience, especially in high-stakes election infrastructure where operational
readiness and proven execution capability are central to public interest.