Tender Authority Can Fix Election Contract Eligibility

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the eligibility conditions in the Election Commission of India’s e-tender for live webcasting in polling stations and recording at counting centres for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, 2026.

The tender related to a large-scale election assignment covering approximately 75,032 polling stations, with two cameras at each station, apart from cameras at counting centres. The petitioner, a company engaged in election webcasting and surveillance services, said it had substantial experience across India and had deployed more than 1,80,000 cameras for polling station webcasting and more than 8,000 CCTV cameras in counting centres over the past seven years.

The challenge was directed against two conditions in the tender. First, bidders were required to have an average annual turnover of Rs.100 crores during the last three financial years. Second, participation through Joint Venture or Consortium was prohibited. The petitioner argued that these conditions were arbitrary, disproportionate, contrary to procurement norms, and violative of Article 14. It also contended that the turnover requirement should not be applied to technically qualified MSME entities and that the conditions were more restrictive than those adopted in some other States.

The respondents justified the conditions by pointing to the scale and sensitivity of the work. They submitted that the present exercise was much larger than the earlier 2024 election arrangement, which covered 45,000 polling stations. For the 2026 elections, the bidder had to arrange equipment, manpower, and connectivity on a far larger scale, including deployment of one person at each polling station. The respondents also said that consortium participation was excluded because the work was time-bound, and shared responsibility among multiple entities could create execution risks.

The Division Bench accepted the respondents’ position. It held that there was no material to show arbitrariness, perversity, mala fide, or bias that would justify judicial interference. The court also observed that the tender floating authority is entitled to prescribe preconditions and qualifications to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and resources to execute the work successfully.

The Bench further held that the tender conditions could not be altered to suit the petitioner. In the court’s words, the best person to frame the terms and conditions of the tender is the tender-making authority, which has the necessary technical and administrative expertise.

The writ petition was dismissed.

Practical takeaway: In election-related procurement, courts will usually defer to the tender authority’s assessment of capacity, scale, and execution risk unless the challenger shows clear arbitrariness or mala fides.