Kerala High Court Quashes Sabarimala Tender, Cites Arbitrary Process and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Kochi, India – In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement, the Kerala High Court has partially set aside a tender notification by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) for the collection of offerings at the Sabarimala shrine. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, ordered a re-tender for three specific items, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Board for its "casual manner" and reminding it of its "solemn fiduciary duty."

The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing administrative actions that deviate from established norms, particularly when public resources and trust are at stake. The court found that the TDB's handling of the e-tender process was marred by significant procedural irregularities that undermined transparency and "squarely raise the spectre of arbitrariness."

Factual Matrix: A Tale of Conflicting Deadlines

The case originated from petitions filed by unsuccessful bidders challenging the tender process for several items, including the lucrative rights to collect coconuts and flowers offered by millions of pilgrims at Sabarimala.

The TDB had initially advertised the e-tender in multiple newspapers, explicitly stating that the deadline for bid submission was 11:00 a.m. on August 27, 2025. However, a critical discrepancy existed on the TDB's official website, which erroneously listed the closing time as 11:00 p.m. on the same day.

This initial error was compounded by a series of subsequent actions by the Board. On the closing day, the e-tender portal was shut down at the advertised time of 11:00 a.m. but was then unilaterally reopened at 7:08 p.m. The submission deadline was then extended until 6:00 p.m. the following day, August 28, 2025.

While the TDB issued a corrigendum to reflect these changes, it was only published on the web portal. Crucially, it was not advertised in the newspapers with the same prominence as the original Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The Board argued that auto-generated emails were sent to bidders who had already submitted their proposals, but this did little to inform the wider pool of potential bidders who may have been guided by the original newspaper advertisements.

Judicial Scrutiny: The Sanctity of Essential Tender Conditions

The High Court's analysis hinged on the fundamental principles governing public tenders, focusing on whether the TDB's deviations from the NIT were permissible or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Bench observed that its duty was to ensure that the tender process remained fair, transparent, and in the public interest.

The court identified the "significant discrepancy concerning the last date and time for submission of bids" as the central flaw. It unequivocally held that the deadline for bid submission is not a mere procedural formality but an essential condition of the contract.

In a key passage, the Court remarked: “We are of the considered view that the last date of submission of bids is an essential condition which cannot be tinkered with.”

The Bench dismantled the TDB's justification for its actions. It noted that if the Board believed the website's deadline was erroneous and the newspaper's was correct, the proper course of action would have been to issue a widely publicized corrigendum.

“If that be so, when the corrigendum was issued, it ought to have been published with the same prominence as the original notice, both in the newspapers and also on the web portal. Failure to do so undermines the transparency of the tender process,” the judgment stated.

The court concluded that this failure to ensure equal publicity created an uneven playing field. The belated issuance of a poorly publicized corrigendum effectively eliminated prospective bidders who were unaware of the extended deadline, while conferring a clear advantage on a limited set of bidders who might have been privy to the change. This, the court found, amounted to arbitrariness.

Legal Implications: A Reaffirmation of Fairness and Fiduciary Duty

This judgment serves as a powerful precedent for legal practitioners in administrative and contract law. It reaffirms several key legal doctrines:

• Strict Adherence to NIT: The ruling reinforces the principle that the terms and conditions outlined in a Notice Inviting Tender, especially essential ones like deadlines, must be scrupulously followed. Any deviation must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and communicated in a manner that preserves a level playing field for all potential participants.

• The Doctrine of Arbitrariness: The court’s finding that the TDB’s actions "squarely raise the spectre of arbitrariness" is a classic application of the grounds for judicial review of administrative action. The combination of the initial error, the unilateral extension, and the inadequate publicity of the corrigendum was deemed manifestly arbitrary and, therefore, unsustainable in law.

• Fiduciary Responsibility of Public Bodies: Beyond the procedural aspects, the court took the opportunity to comment on the TDB's overarching responsibilities. Acting as a trustee for the temple's offerings, the Board has a higher duty of care. The court's admonishment highlights that public bodies managing public or religious trust resources are held to the standard of a fiduciary.

  "While acting as a trustee of the temple's offerings, the TDB is expected to adopt a solemn fiduciary duty to adopt procedures that secure the highest possible return for the coconut offerings," the Bench asserted. It warned that any "laxity or departure from the principles of fairness, transparency, and openness not only erodes public confidence but also undermines the very trust reposed in it."

Conclusion: A Call for Greater Professionalism

In partially setting aside the tender for item Nos. 1, 3, and 85 and ordering a re-tender, the Kerala High Court has sent an unequivocal message to the Travancore Devaswom Board and other public authorities. The judgment is not merely a procedural correction but a stern call for greater professionalism, vigilance, and adherence to the foundational principles of administrative law.

The court's strong disapproval of the "casual manner" in which the tender was conducted serves as a warning against future lapses. By mandating that the TDB follow the correct procedure in the re-tender, the judiciary has reasserted its role as a guardian of public interest, ensuring that processes designed to maximize public benefit are not compromised by administrative negligence or arbitrariness.