Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, C, JJ
AMAN SATYA KACHROO TRUST – Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5438/2022 | W.P.(C) 9263/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Indira Unninayar, Ms.Apoorv Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Mr. Yadhnunandan Bansal, Mr. Abdul Qadir
Judicial review of tender processes must respect the authority's discretion unless proven arbitrary or biased, emphasizing the need for fair and transparent procedures.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 12(a)(ii) - Writ petitions against the University Grants Commission regarding management of the National Ragging Prevention Programme formerly handled by the petitioner - Challenges to tender processes leading to the award of contracts to third parties, asserting discrimination and loss of public interest. (Paras 1-3, 19-20)
(B) Judicial Review in Tender Processes - Firm principles established around arbitrary policy shifts and the necessity of fair play in tendering procedures and the evaluation processes conducted by statutory authorities. (Paras 30-39)
(C) Anti-Ragging Framework - The Supreme Court mandated independent monitoring of regulations to safeguard student rights; evidence of systemic failures resulting in increased student suicides underlined the urgency for effective oversight. (Paras 46-50)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner argued for the continuation of control over the National Ragging Prevention Programme, expressing concerns over new tender policies perceived as favoring a particular organization and lack of adherence to Supreme Court directives meant to protect student welfare amidst rising incidents of student distress and suicides. (Paras 1-4, 28-30, 56)
Findings of Court:
The court recognized the Supreme Court's ongoing scrutiny into student suicides and the National Task Force's mandate to evaluate current policies, while refraining from delving into the merits of the ongoing tender awarded to the third party without substantial evidence of malfeasance. (Paras 51-62)
Issues: The main issues included the legality and fairness of the tender process utilized for the National Ragging Prevention Programme and the implications of shifting from a nomination-based to a tender-based model in light of past failures. (Paras 1-2, 30-31, 34-35)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized judicial restraint regarding tender matters, reiterating that unless there is compelling evidence of arbitrariness or malfeasance, the actions of the tendering authority must be respected as they are best positioned to make such determinations in public interest. (Paras 30-39)
Result: Both petitions were disposed of; the status quo of the current tender was maintained while noting the issues raised would be considered by the National Task Force constituted by the Supreme Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review emphasizes restraint in commercial tender matters. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 2. court refrains from interfering with ongoing tender arrangements. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 3. court disposes petitions but emphasizes the need for effective actions. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
JUDGEMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J
1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner/Trust seeking various reliefs in respect of management of the National Ragging Prevention Programme, which was originally run by the petitioner/Trust since 2012 and was discontinued since April 2022 when Respondent no.1/ University Grants Commission (“UGC”) issued a fresh tender which culminated in the award of contract to Respondent No.3/Centre for Youth Society (‘C4Y’). While, the first tender, issued in December 2021, was challenged in W.P.(C) 5438/2022, during the pendency of the writ before this Court, a fresh tender dated 18th June 2024 had been issued, which was challenged in the subsequent W.P.(C) 9263/2024
2. In W.P.(C) 5438/2022, petitioner seeks cancellation of the contract awarded to Respondent No.3/Centre for Youth Society (‘C4Y’) for managing and monitoring the Anti-Ragging Programme; a direction permitting the petitioner to continue to manage and monitor the said programme under Rule 194 of the Government Financial Rules, 2017; a direction to the Mishra Committee (earlier known as the Raghavan Committee) to submit a review report of the programme with recommendations for improvements in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in order dated 08th May 2009; a direction to the Central Vigilance Commission to initiate a vigilance enquiry against the members of the tender evaluation committee of Respondent No.1/ UGC for allegedly favouring Respondent No.3/C4Y; and a direction to the National Human Rights Commission to initiate an inquiry under Section 12 (a)(ii) of the Protection of Human Rights Act , 1993, for destroying the ragging prevention programme meant to protect millions of students.
3. In W.P.(C) 9263/2024, the petitions seeks a direction to Respondent No.1/UGC to cancel its notice, advertisement and tender dated 18th June 2024 relating to the National Ragging Prevention Programme (“impugned tender”); a direction to Respondent No.2/Ministry of Education (“MOE”) to redraft the impugned tender confining it only to the management of the Call Centre; a direction to Respondent No.2/MOE to seek comments from the Raghavan/Mishra Committee on the management of the programme by respondent no.1/UGC in light of the directions of the Supreme Court; and a direction to stay the operation of the notice, advertisement and the impugned tender pending adjudication of W.P.(C) 5438/2022.
Case of the petitioner
4. The genesis of the controversy goes back to March 2009, when the Petitioner, Prof. Rajendra Kachroo, prepared a detailed and technology driven plan titled “National Ragging Prevention Programme”, aimed at eradicating ragging in higher educational institutions. The plan comprised four key components: firstly, a 24x7 nationwide anti-ragging helpline secondly, a database of student and parent details collected through online affidavits at the time of admission; thirdly, a database of Anti-Ragging Committees and officials of nearly 50,000 colleges across the country; and 3 fourthly, a compliance and monitoring mechanism (‘CRM’) through a call centre-based platform for enforcement of anti-ragging regulations.
5. This plan was placed before the Supreme Court, which, by order dated 08th May 2009, in University of Kerala v. Council, Principals’ Colleges, Kerala & Ors. [Civil Appeal 887/2009] , directed its implementation. The Court specifically mandated that the monitoring function be entrusted to a non-governmental agency. For ease of reference, paragraph 2 of the said order is extracted below:
“2. Learned amicus curiae has submitted that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, I consultation with UGC
