Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC Verdict Quashing MEA Tenders On Outsourcing Consular Services At 4 Indian Missions

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the Union Government's challenge to the Delhi High Court's judgment setting aside tenders for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra. However, the Court permitted the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Engineers India Limited (EIL) to make interim arrangements to ensure uninterrupted services until a fresh tender process is completed.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union Government and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi and Shyam Divan for the private parties.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General submitted that the Delhi High Court had erred in quashing the tender process and contended that the evaluation criteria had been applied on the basis of each bidder's individual competence.

Questioning the Government's stand, the Chief Justice observed, "But you invited the High Court order by not giving grounds."

The Solicitor General argued that the marking system had to be interpreted in a practical manner across different tenders. He submitted that if the tender conditions were read literally, arbitrary results could follow depending on the sequence in which bids were examined.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, noted that this was precisely the concern identified by the High Court.

"The High Court says that the terms governing the assessment of bids were not clearly reflected and that they created an unworkable situation. If that is so, then as per the law declared by this Court, you cannot change the terms of a tender document after the tender process has commenced," Justice Bagchi observed.

The Solicitor General further submitted that the original records of the tender process had been produced before the High Court in sealed cover but were allegedly not examined. He said the Government was willing to place those records before the Court even now.

The Bench also asked who was presently carrying out the services after acceptance of the lowest (L-1) bids, to which Mehta replied that the existing successful bidders had already been allotted the work.

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, the Solicitor General sought liberty to approach the High Court again with additional reasons supporting the tender evaluation.

The Court, however, declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment and dismissed the special leave petition.

Recognising the need to avoid disruption in passport and visa services at Indian missions abroad, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's directions to permit temporary arrangements pending a fresh tender exercise.

The Court directed that EIL and the MEA may engage the existing L-1 contractors, if their performance has been satisfactory, or appoint any other agency as considered appropriate for the interim period. It clarified that such an arrangement would be purely temporary, would not create any special equities in favour of any party, and would remain subject to the outcome of the fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

The Bench further directed the Ministry of External Affairs to complete the fresh tender process as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, while ensuring compliance with the Delhi High Court's earlier directions. It also clarified that the interim arrangement would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties.

Background:

In a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain, the Delhi High Court on July 15 quashed the Ministry of External Affairs' tender process for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra, holding that the technical evaluation of bidders was arbitrary, opaque and violative of the principles of fairness and transparency. The Court found that bidders were awarded inconsistent marks for identical proposals across different missions without any disclosed rationale, and held that the evaluation process suffered from arbitrariness and lack of transparency, offending Article 14 of the Constitution. It also set aside the award of contracts to the successful bidders and directed the MEA to issue fresh Requests for Proposal (RFPs) within one month. To ensure continuity of public services, the High Court permitted the existing service providers to continue until the fresh tender process was completed and new L-1 bidders were selected in accordance with law.

Case : UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. E TRAV TECH LIMITED AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 24271-24277/2026