No Arbitrariness In Clubbing CCTV, GPS & Webcasting Experience: Calcutta High Court On Election Tender

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the tender conditions for providing a surveillance and live web-streaming system for the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, reiterating that courts should exercise minimal interference in contractual matters unless the conditions are shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.

Dismissing an appeal filed by M/s Innovatiview India Limited, a Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Request for Proposal (RFP) had a direct nexus with the scale and nature of the work and could not be termed irrational or anti-competitive.

The appellant had challenged the experience requirements relating to large-scale web-streaming at polling stations, installation of CCTV cameras at counting centres, and GPS tracking of election-related vehicles, contending that these conditions were excessive, artificially restrictive, and designed to exclude otherwise competent bidders. It was argued that experience in CCTV deployment and GPS tracking was ancillary to web-streaming and could either be relaxed or handled through separate contracts or third-party arrangements.

However, the Court rejected these submissions, observing that the project involved monitoring over 80,000 polling stations, multiple counting centres, and thousands of vehicles, making it a complex and high-stakes exercise. In such circumstances, requiring prior experience across all components was justified to ensure efficiency, reliability, and security in the electoral process.

The Bench emphasized that bidders cannot dictate the structuring of tender conditions or seek relaxation as a matter of right. It held that past experience is a valid and objective criterion for assessing a bidder's capability, particularly in projects involving significant public interest. The Court also noted that the appellant itself had only sought relaxation of certain conditions during the pre-bid stage, rather than challenging their necessity, which weakened its case.

Distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Bench held that the impugned conditions did not confine participation to a specific class or geography, but were uniformly applicable and linked to the requirements of the project.

Rejecting allegations that the tender was tailor-made to favour a select few, the Court found no material to establish mala fides or arbitrariness, noting that multiple bidders had participated in the process. It further declined to entertain the appellant's objection regarding the participation of a previously blacklisted entity, holding that the issue was not raised before the Single Judge and would constitute a fresh cause of action. Reaffirming settled principles on judicial restraint in tender matters, the Court concluded that the terms of the RFP fell within the domain of the tendering authority and did not warrant interference.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, along with connected applications, and the prayer for stay of the judgment was also rejected.

Case: M/s Innovatiview India Limited vs. The Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, Election Commission of India and Anr.

Case No: A.P.O.T. No. 41 of 2026

Click here to read order