The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 15 July set aside the technical evaluation process for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait, Singapore, and Canberra (Australia), ruling that the bidder assessment was vitiated by “arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency” in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to float fresh tenders within one month.

What the Court Ruled

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain allowed petitions filed by E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited, which had challenged their disqualification at the technical bid stage in tenders floated by the MEA. The bench held that while courts do not ordinarily sit in appeal over technical assessments by expert bodies, judicial review is warranted when the decision-making process is “arbitrary, opaque and fails to satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, transparency and equality.”

The court found that although the government had furnished parameter-wise marks following directions of the Supreme Court, it failed to disclose the basis on which those marks were awarded. “The evaluation sheets neither identify deficiencies in the Petitioners’ proposals nor disclose the comparative benchmarks applied while awarding proportionately lower marks under comparative criteria,” the judgment stated.

Inconsistencies in Marking Across Missions

The bench also flagged significant inconsistencies in the marking process, noting that materially identical proposals and supporting documents received substantially different scores across different Missions without any recorded reasons. “In the absence of any recorded reasons for such varying assessments, the distinct allocation of marks appears unsupported by any objective basis,” the court observed, adding that consistency in evaluating substantially identical material is “an essential facet of a fair and transparent tender process.”

The court further dismissed the Centre’s argument that deficiencies in the bids had been explained during oral presentations before the Technical Evaluation Committees, holding that such presentations “cannot substitute recorded reasons.” If deductions were based on shortcomings noticed during presentations, those shortcomings “ought to have been reflected in the contemporaneous evaluation records,” the judgment said.

Violation of GFR Rules and Natural Justice

The Justice Kshetrapal-led bench held that the absence of recorded reasons constituted the “most fundamental infirmity” in the entire evaluation process. It ruled that merely communicating parameter-wise marks without disclosing the factual basis for deductions violated Rules 173(iv) and 189 of the General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017, the tender conditions, and settled principles of fair administrative action. The failure rendered the “decision-making process opaque, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice,” the court held.

The bench also rejected the Centre’s contention that the petitions were barred by the principle of res judicata, ruling that the challenge arose from a fresh cause of action after the disclosure of parameter-wise marks pursuant to earlier court orders.

Fresh Tenders Ordered, Existing Providers to Continue

Setting aside the technical evaluations, the court also nullified the award of contracts in favour of the successful private bidders. It directed the MEA and the concerned Indian Missions to issue fresh Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for CPV services at Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore, and Canberra within one month and to complete the tender process expeditiously. To prevent any disruption in public services, the court permitted existing service providers to continue operating until the fresh tender process is concluded.

The ruling has implications for how the MEA structures and documents technical evaluations in future outsourcing contracts, particularly for consular services that directly affect Indian nationals abroad.