Local Lockdown on EVM Scrap: Karnataka HC Backs In-State Recycling Mandate

In a ruling emphasizing environmental oversight over open competition, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed a writ petition challenging tender conditions for recycling decommissioned Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum , in his order dated April 29, 2026, upheld clauses requiring recyclers to have facilities within Karnataka, citing the unique sensitivity of electoral hardware and directives from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) .

From Past Wins to Tender Block: The Petitioner's Plight

Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited , an Maharashtra-based e-waste specialist with a track record of handling similar BEL tenders nationwide, hit a wall with the December 24, 2025, auction floated by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) through MSTC Limited . The company, armed with national e-waste authorizations, argued that clauses—especially II.3.5 mandating Karnataka-based facilities and KSPCB approvals—were exclusionary. They claimed prior success with BEL, including compliance assistance during KSPCB scrutiny, and invoked CPCB FAQs allowing interstate e-waste transport. Evergreen was even denied goods inspection and EMD submission, prompting the WP under Articles 226/227 seeking to quash the tender.

The timeline underscores escalation: past tenders led to KSPCB notices (e.g., March 14, 2025), a conditional one-time authorization (August 12, 2025) favoring local recyclers, and BEL's pivot to stricter local clauses amid compliance woes.

Interstate Freedom vs. Local Watchdogs: Clash of Claims

Petitioner's counsel, led by Senior Advocate G L Vishwanath , hammered home Article 14 violations, labeling the conditions "territorial and exclusionary." Drawing on Vinishma Technologies v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119), they argued statutory e-waste rules permit nationwide processing, making local mandates arbitrary and anti-competitive under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (KTPP Act) .

Respondents, represented by Senior Advocates Lakshmi Iyengar for BEL and H M Muralidhar for MSTC, fired back: This isn't routine scrap—it's "highly sensitive" electoral gear demanding ironclad safeguards. Past lapses triggered KSPCB interventions, with the Board's authorization explicitly preferring Karnataka recyclers for "monitoring, inspection, and environmental compliance." Citing Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216, they defended tender autonomy, insisting courts defer unless arbitrariness is patent.

Regulatory Realities Trump Bidder Rights: The Court's Calculus

Justice Magadum navigated familiar terrain: judicial review in tenders is "extremely limited," per Supreme Court precedents, with authorities as "best judges" of needs absent mala fides. The KTPP Act promotes fairness but bows to procurement objects like safety.

Dismissing Article 14 claims, the court linked local mandates to KSPCB's post-lapse push for "continuous monitoring" and "immediate regulatory intervention." EVM disposal isn't mere commerce—it's laced with data security and hazardous waste risks, distinguishing it from general e-waste. CPCB's interstate permissibility? Not a ticket to every tender. Petitioner's history didn't grant "enforceable entitlement" to tweaks, as prior compliance was "neither seamless nor free from regulatory concern."

The bench distinguished Vinishma Technologies as factually inapposite, affirming conditions' "rational nexus" with BEL's "operational integrity" as EVM maker.

"The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance."
(Para 14)

"Permissibility under law does not translate into enforceable entitlement to participate in every tender."
(Para 16)

"Environmental compliance and regulatory enforceability stand on a higher pedestal when dealing with hazardous waste."
(Para 24)

"A prospective bidder cannot insist that the terms of invitation to tender be tailored to suit its convenience or business model."
(Para 18)

No Quash, Full Steam Ahead: Verdict and Ripples

The writ stands dismissed , with clauses II.3.1, II.3.2, II.3.3, and II.3.5 upheld as valid . No costs; liberty applications closed.

This green-lights BEL's auction, prioritizing KSPCB-aligned caution. For future tenders, especially sensitive disposals, it signals latitude for local mandates where regulators demand proximity—potentially reshaping e-waste bids nationwide. As news reports echo, the "sensitivity of EVMs" justifies the condition, balancing competition with compliance in public procurement's high-stakes arena.