Chennai, March 17 (NationPress) On Tuesday, the Madras High Court reserved its judgment regarding writ petitions that contest the eligibility criteria for a significant surveillance tender issued for the forthcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

This case has gained attention due to worries that the stipulated conditions may limit fair competition in this substantial public contract.

The petitions were submitted by Innovatiview India Limited from Delhi and I-Net Secure Labs Private Limited based in Chennai. They argue that the tender conditions set by the Chief Electoral Officer's office were unduly stringent, effectively excluding several capable participants from the bidding process.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan heard extensive arguments from all parties involved and, recognizing the urgency of the situation, indicated that they would aim to issue their ruling promptly, as the deadline for bid submissions and the opening of technical bids was scheduled for later that day.

The tender pertains to the deployment of approximately 1.5 lakh cameras across 75,000 polling stations and 3,744 cameras in counting centers for live webcasting throughout the electoral process. This initiative is projected to cost around Rs 120 crore and aims to improve transparency and monitoring.

Senior counsel Siddharth Mridul, representing I-Net Secure Labs, argued that the tender's conditions contravened established public procurement standards. He highlighted that the requirement for a minimum annual turnover of Rs 100 crore in each of the last three financial years was disproportionate compared to the project's value.

Referencing Central Vigilance Commission guidelines, he asserted that turnover criteria should generally not surpass 30–40 percent of the project cost. He also criticized the clauses that prohibited joint ventures and limited experience evaluation exclusively to the primary bidder within consortia, claiming these stipulations narrowed the competitive landscape.

In drawing comparisons with other states, he noted that West Bengal had implemented more lenient eligibility standards for a similar project that utilized a greater number of cameras, thereby facilitating broader participation.

Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, representing Innovatiview India Limited, contested an added requirement mandating bidders to prove prior experience of live web streaming from at least one lakh polling station cameras, alongside the installation of 2,500 CCTV cameras in counting centers.

While he agreed that experience in large-scale webcasting was reasonable, he contended that the additional requirement concerning counting centers was arbitrary and created an unnecessary obstacle for otherwise qualified companies.

In opposition to the petitions, ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopal defended the tender's conditions, asserting that they were crafted to meet the specific demands and operational scale in Tamil Nadu. He maintained that elevated eligibility standards were essential to guarantee the efficient delivery of a project of this scale.