1. Challenge to tender conditions requiring past performance within a specific state for the supply of sports kits to government schools. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1765
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kumar, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12487 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 24075 of 2025), Civil Appeal No. 12488 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 26192 of 2025), Civil Appeal No. 12489 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 23611 of 2025)
Decided On : 06-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Raj, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Harsh Abhishek, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Soni, Adv. Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Anubhav Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kashish Lalwani, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Jain, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Raj, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Harsh Abhishek, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Soni, Adv. Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR Mr. Anubhav Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kashish Lalwani, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Jain, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Government Contract – Tender – Doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally placed.(2) Government Contract – Tender – Eligibility criteria mentioned in impugned tender notices must have rational nexus with object sought to be achieved and should be framed in a manner which encourages wider participation and secures best prize for State, which in turn safeguards Public Exchequer.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Government Contract – Tender – Exclusion of competent suppliers from outside State – Government must have free hand in setting terms of tender and Court cannot strike down terms of tender prescribed by Authority merely because it feels some other terms in the tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical – In the matter of formulating conditions of tender document unless action of tendering authority is found to be arbitrary and malicious Court would not interfere – Court cannot sit over judgment on what should be eligibility criteria in tender notice unless same is arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by mala fides – Doctrine of level playing field is an important concept while construing Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. (Paras 15 and 16) (B) Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Government Contract – Tender – Eligibility criteria mentioned in impugned tender notices must have rational nexus with object sought to be achieved and should be framed in a manner which encourages wider participation and secures best prize for State, which in turn safeguards Public Exchequer – State by linking eligibility criteria with past local supplies has created an artificial barrier, against suppliers who had no past dealing with State of Chhattisgarh – Impugned condition curtails fundamental rights of bidders, who have been ineligible to participate in tenders – Object of public procurement is to secure quality goods and services for benefit of public exchequer – To confine eligibility to participate in tender, within one State is not only irrational but is also disproportionate to goal of ensuring effective delivery of Sports Kits – Impugned condition operates as a closed door to outsiders and restricts wider participation of bidders and restricts competition – Impugned tender condition is violative of Article 14 and also offends Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India – Impugned orders as well as impugned tender notices quashed and set aside with liberty to respondents to issue fresh notices inviting tenders. (Paras 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23) Facts of the case: Instant appeals take exception to orders dated 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 passed in three Writ Petitions preferred by appellant. High Court of Chhattisgarh by said orders, has repelled challenge to impugned tender condition contained in three tender notices dated 21.07.2025 which were issued for supply of Sports Kits to students of Government Primary School, Government Upper Primary Schools and Government High and Higher Secondary Schools in State of Chhattisgarh. Findings of Court: Impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ Petition (C) No. 4263 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4274 of 2025 respectively by High Court as well as impugned tender notices dated 21.07.2025 issued by Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh for supply of Sports Kits to students of Government Primary, Upper Primary, High and Higher Secondary Schools are quashed and set aside. Result : Appeals allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The Court emphasized that the doctrine of level playing field requires that the gates of competition be open to all bidders who are equally qualified, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity in government procurement processes (!) (!) .
-
The eligibility criteria in tender notices must have a rational nexus with the objective of the procurement and should be framed to encourage wider participation and secure the best outcome for the State, thereby safeguarding public interest and the public exchequer (!) .
-
The Court clarified that the State has the authority to set tender conditions, but such conditions must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or malicious. The Court will not interfere with tender terms unless they are found to be arbitrary or actuated by mala fides (!) .
-
Restrictions based on past local performance, such as requiring supply experience within the State, can create artificial barriers that violate constitutional rights, particularly Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), by excluding capable suppliers from outside the State without just cause (!) (!) .
-
The Court held that confining eligibility to local suppliers is irrational and disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective delivery of services, especially when supply of goods like sports kits does not involve security risks or special considerations that justify such restrictions (!) (!) .
-
The impugned tender condition, which excluded suppliers without recent supply experience in Chhattisgarh, was deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional guarantees. It was found to restrict competition and promote cartelization (!) (!) .
-
The Court rejected the justification that regional security concerns or the state’s affected status justified exclusion of outsiders, emphasizing that such reasons are untenable for non-security-related supplies like sports kits and that local engagement can be achieved through supply chain arrangements (!) (!) .
-
As a result, the Court quashed the impugned tender conditions and orders, and permitted the respondents to issue fresh tender notices that comply with constitutional principles, ensuring wider participation and fair competition (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or specific legal recommendations based on these points?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether restricting eligibility to bidders with past local supply experience is arbitrary and discriminatory or a reasonable measure to ensure delivery in sensitive areas. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Restricting eligibility to local past performance creates artificial barriers, discourages competition, promotes cartelization, and lacks rational nexus with the objective of public procurement. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Tender conditions restricting eligibility to bidders with past performance in a specific state violate the doctrine of level playing field under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). (Para 18 , 20 , 22 )
5. High Court orders and impugned tender notices quashed and set aside; respondents granted liberty to issue fresh tender notices. (Para 23 )
6. What is the doctrine of level playing field in the context of public tenders?
It is an expression of Article 19(1)(g) requiring that all equally placed competitors be given equal opportunity to participate in trade and commerce, preventing the State from erecting artificial barriers to skew the market in favor of a few. (Para 16 , 18 )
7. Is a tender condition requiring past performance within a specific state legally sustainable?
Generally no, as such conditions create artificial barriers against competent outsiders, restrict wider participation, and promote cartelization, thereby violating the mandate of Article 14 and the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g). (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
8. Can regional security concerns justify restricting tender eligibility to local suppliers?
Not if the goods are not security-sensitive and the entire state is not uniformly affected by the security issue, as successful bidders can engage local supply chains to ensure timely delivery. (Para 21 )
9. To what extent can courts interfere with the eligibility criteria set by a tendering authority?
Courts will not interfere with the government's free hand in setting tender terms unless the criteria are found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, malicious, or lack a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 15 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to orders dated 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 passed in three Writ Petitions preferred by the appellant. The High Court of Chhattisgarh by the said orders, has repelled the challenge to the impugned tender condition contained in three tender notices dated 21.07.2025 which were issued for supply of Sports Kits to the students of Government Primary School, Government Upper Primary Schools and Government High and Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Chhattisgarh.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals which lie in a narrow compass, are as under:
(I) FACTS
4. The appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and claims to have experience of supplying Sports Kits to various Departments of the States of Bihar, Karnataka, Gujarat and Government of NCT Delhi. The respondent No. 1 is State of Chhattisgarh whereas respondent No. 2 is State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office, Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh.
5. The Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Scheme is a Scheme for providing for supplementary nutrition, immunization and pre-school education to the children, launched in the year 1975, is a popular flagship program of the Central Government. The said Scheme provides for the integrated package of services, for the holistic development of the child and is a centrally sponsored scheme implemented by State Governments and the Union Territories. The Scheme is largely funded by the Government of India.
6. The Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office, Department of School Education, Chhattisgarh published three tender notices (hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned tender notices”) on 21.07.2025 through Government-e-Market Place Portal for supply of Sports Kits to the students of Primary School, Upper Primary Schools and High and Higher Secondary Schools run by the State Government in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Sports Kits were to be supplied to 5540 cluster resource centres situated across all 33 districts in the State. The tender value of the contract was Rs.15.24 crores, Rs.13.08 crores and Rs.11.49 crores.
7. Section III(A) of the impugned tender notices prescribe qualification criteria with additional terms and conditions. The appellant was aggrieved by additional terms and conditions namely, condition Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 13, which rendered the appellant ineligible for participation in the impugned tender process. It, therefore, submitted a representation on 29.07.2025 to the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, School Education Department, Chhattisgarh. The aforesaid representation failed to evoke any response. The appellant thereupon filed three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ Petition (C) No. 4263 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4274 of 2025, before the High Court in which validity of the aforesaid impugned tender conditions was challenged.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition by way of corrigendum dated 07.08.2025 condition Nos. 1, 11, and 13 were deleted. The Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Civil Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ Petition (C) No. 4263 of 2025 and by an order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4274 of 2025, inter alia held that the impugned eligibility condition namely, condition No. 4 with regard to past performance is of similar nature and purpose, as, the condition in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors , (2005) 1 SCC 679. It was further held that respondents have demonstrated that the impugned tender condition is not unique to the State of Chhattisgarh but is prevalent in other States such as Gujarat, Assam, Delhi, Orissa and Jharkhand. It was further found by the High Court that a contract containing a similar condition, was awarded to the appellant in the State of Jharkhand. The High Court rep
