Delhi High Court Upholds Sole Agency For Nationwide Emergency Alert System, Says Govt Can Depart From Open Tender In Public Interest
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Centre's decision to appoint the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) as the sole agency for implementing a nationwide Cell Broadcasting system, which is designed to send emergency alerts directly to people's mobile phones during disasters and other public emergencies.
Justice Sachin Datta dismissed a petition filed by Utimaco Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a provider of Cell Broadcast-based products and services, challenging the October 2024 Office Memorandum which entrusted the nationwide implementation to C-DOT.
The bench held that the Sachet project was “not an ordinary commercial procurement” but a public-safety initiative aimed at rapid dissemination of emergency alerts during disasters.
For context, Petitioner had argued that the OM violated the General Financial Rules, 2017 (GFR), ignored recommendations of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) favouring either a two-vendor model or an open tender, and lacked contemporaneous justification for bypassing open tender.
The High Court however found that NDMA's views had been considered by the decision-making authority. It observed, “A decision which considers and consciously departs from a recommendation, for recorded reasons, cannot be equated with a decision which ignores it.”
Further, the Court held that operationalising the Cell Broadcasting system constituted a non-consulting service attracting Rule 204 of the GFR, which permits procurement of a non-consulting service from a specifically chosen contractor in an “exceptional situation”, after consultation with the Financial Adviser and upon providing detailed justification.
These requirements were substantially satisfied, the Court noted, adding that the C-DOT proposal was considered in the presence of the Financial Adviser and subsequently approved by the competent authorities.
The Court also rejected comparative technical assessment of C-DOT and Petitioner, holding that under Article 226, judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision.
The Court also noted the Government's concerns about national security and promoting indigenous technology.
It further noted that the project had since been sanctioned at an outlay of Rs. 99.82 crore and the broadcasting system had been deployed. Thus, interfering with an operational nationwide emergency-alert system would be “wholly disproportionate”.
At the same time, the Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs and other Union departments to undertake course-correction measures for future procurements by nomination.
It directed that the specific enabling provision of the GFR be expressly invoked, the justification be contemporaneously recorded, and approval of the competent authority be obtained with conscious reference to the provision.
Appearance: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo, Mr. Darpan Sachdeva and Mr. Ankit Handa, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. R.V. Prabhat Sharma, Mr. Yashwardhan and Mr. Sharma Naman, Advs. along with Ms. Sabina Shahid, Sr. Consultant (Legal) for R-1/UOI. Mr. Udit Seth and Ms. Akshita Gupta, Advs. for R-4.
Case title: Utimaco Technologies Pvt Ltd. v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15291/2024