Supreme Court Upholds Calcutta HC Order Refusing Stay On WB Election Webcasting Tender; SLP Dismissed

A Bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no case for interference with the High Court's order was made out, and accordingly dismissed the SLP. All pending applications were also closed.

Earlier, a Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta had declined interim relief to the appellant, an unsuccessful bidder, which had challenged the order dated March 25, 2026 passed in WPA 6237 of 2026.

The tender, issued on February 9, 2026 by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, required bidders to meet eligibility conditions including execution of live election web streaming involving at least 1,30,000 cameras at polling stations and 3000 CCTV cameras at counting centres, along with experience of at least three full state orders.

The appellant contended that despite its bid being rejected, relaxation of eligibility criteria was granted to successful bidders (L2 and L3). It argued that experience in Delhi was treated as “state” experience for L2, while its own experience in Union Territories such as Puducherry and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu was not considered. It also alleged that L3 had not completed 'full state' work in Mizoram.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted that Delhi stands on a different constitutional footing under Article 239AA, and that completion of work in Mizoram was assessed as 'full state' in accordance with applicable Guidelines of Election Commission of India governing such election.

The High Court observed that interpretation of tender conditions and evaluation of bids falls within the domain of the tendering authority, and the correctness of such assessment would be examined at the stage of final hearing.

On interim relief, the Court held that:

• The appellant failed to establish parity with or superiority over the successful bidders;
• Work orders had already been issued and implementation had commenced in view of the impending elections and milestones in the tender;
• Given the timelines and preparatory steps required, the situation had become “irreversible.”

Accordingly, the Court refused to stay or cancel the work orders and directed that the appeal be heard on merits.

Dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court held no ground was made out to interfere with the High Court's order.

Appearance

For Appellant: Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate; Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR; Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran and others.

For Respondents:

(ECI) – Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devansh Rai, Adv. Ms. Ananya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Utsav, Adv. Ms. Anamika Mishra, Adv.

(L1) - Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Aparna Sinha, AOR Mr. Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya, Adv. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhay, Adv. Ms. Suchisattwa Mallick, Adv.

(L2) – Mr. C A Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Nivesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Sanjukta Dutta, Adv. Mr. Shreyaan Bhattacharyya, Adv.

(L3) – Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv. Ms. Tannishtha Singh, Adv. Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sambhav, Adv. Mr. Rohan Raj, Adv. Mr. Tamoghna Chattopadhyay, Adv. M/S. Meharia & Company, AOR

Case Title: I-Net Secure Labs Private Limited & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 12872 of 2026 arising out of CAN No. 1/2026 in MAT 593 of 2026.