Delhi HC quashes MEA's tender evaluation for visa, passport services at four Indian M
Delhi HC quashes MEA's tender evaluation for visa, passport services at four Indian Missions
M.U.H
16/07/202612
The Delhi High Court has quashed the technical evaluation process adopted by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra, holding that the exercise was arbitrary, irrational and lacked transparency.A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Shail Jain also set aside the award of contracts to the successful private bidders and directed the Centre to issue fresh Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for all four Missions within one month. The court asked the government to complete the fresh tender process at the earliest.
To avoid disruption in public services, the Bench allowed the existing service providers to continue until the new tender process is completed and fresh L-1 bidders are selected in accordance with law.
The order came on petitions filed by E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited, which challenged their technical disqualification from the bidding process.
Allowing the petitions, the court held that the parameter-wise marks awarded during the technical evaluation were vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency, making the process unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Bench also found that the MEA and the concerned Indian Missions had violated the General Financial Rules, 2017, and the terms of the RFP by failing to record and communicate reasons for the technical evaluation and disqualification of bidders.
It observed that merely disclosing parameter-wise scores, without explaining the basis for awarding or deducting marks, made the evaluation process opaque and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The court noted that although the authorities later disclosed the break-up of marks following directions of the Supreme Court, they still failed to explain the criteria or comparative benchmarks used during the assessment. It also found unexplained inconsistencies, observing that identical proposals submitted by the petitioners received different scores across Missions, while some bidders were awarded zero marks despite meeting prescribed standards.
Rejecting the Centre's objection that the petitions were barred by the principle of res judicata, the Bench held that the challenge arose only after the evaluation details were disclosed in May 2026. History
The High Court reiterated that while courts generally do not interfere with technical evaluations, they can examine whether the decision-making process is fair, transparent and non-arbitrary.
The Bench also noted that E Trav Tech had placed on record material showing it had submitted substantially lower financial bids than the successful bidders across all four Missions. As this was not disputed, the court observed that the arbitrary exclusion of a lower bidder could adversely impact the public exchequer, making transparency in public procurement indispensable.
