Back
Supreme Court Commends Dharavi Residents' COVID Wisdom in SecLink-Adani Tender Challenge Hearing
In a rare moment of judicial appreciation that transcended the technicalities of a commercial dispute, the lauded the residents of Dharavi for their exemplary discipline and wisdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. The commendation came during the hearing of a filed by challenging the ’s decision that upheld the cancellation of an earlier tender and affirmed the award of the Dharavi slum redevelopment project to .
A division bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale was hearing arguments from , appearing for the , and for the petitioner. As the court delved into the reasons for the cancellation of the first tender process and the subsequent re-tendering, the discussion turned to the immense challenges posed by the pandemic in Dharavi—one of the most densely populated slums in Asia.
A Rare Commendation from the Bench
When the Solicitor General referred to the difficulties of proceeding with the project during the pandemic, Justice Varale interjected with an unsolicited tribute to the local community. “Since reference is made to the COVID-19 pandemic, I must appreciate all those Dharavi residents for their extraordinary understanding and wisdom shown in those pandemic periods when it was very difficult to provide medical assistance to such a large area, but for their joint efforts and understanding shown by them and extraordinary efforts. Corporation officers could fight COVID, and they stood as an example for the rest of Bombay. So many corporation officers lost their lives in that battle. That must be appreciated. Otherwise figures would have been lacs,” the judge observed.
The court noted that the residents voluntarily assisted municipal officers in maintaining social distancing despite the cramped living conditions and narrow lanes. The bench’s remarks highlighted a community-driven response that averted a far greater tragedy.
Solicitor General Mehta added a vivid picture of the reality in Dharavi: “In Dharavi area, one house would have 10-15 people and imagine the situation in a lockdown area. They were staying there. Lanes are so narrow that social distancing is a remote dream but only because of the self-imposed discipline of the people and selfless service of the corporation people.”
Justice Sundresh agreed, offering a broader sociological insight: “Sometimes, poverty and lack of amenities will make you broad-minded. It will happen to joint families also. If you are in a joint family, if you live with people, you know how to adjust and how to deal with problems. Sacrifice gets created in the character. They are in a better position to deal with the problem.”
The Tender Dispute
The case before the Supreme Court, however, is not about public health but about public procurement. The Dharavi slum redevelopment project, one of the largest urban renewal initiatives in India, originally invited tenders in . In the first financial bid, , incorporated in Seychelles, quoted ₹7,200 crore, while offered ₹4,529 crore. SecLink was declared the highest bidder.
But on , the of the decided to cancel the entire tender process. The rationale was to include 45 acres of railway land in the project, making it more viable. A fresh tender was issued on , with modified terms and conditions. In this second round, emerged as the successful bidder with a price of ₹5,069 crore.
SecLink challenged the cancellation before the , arguing that the fresh tender was tailor-made to favour and defeat its legitimate rights. The petitioner contended that the inclusion of railway land was a pretext to scuttle its winning bid.
Legal Challenge and High Court Verdict
The dismissed the petition, holding that the CoS had provided valid reasons for cancellation, including the in expanding the project scope. The High Court observed that the inclusion of railway land made the project more viable and that the fresh tender was a by the state.
Undeterred, SecLink moved the Supreme Court, which is now examining whether the cancellation and re-tendering were or . During the hearing, the bench did not issue any interim order but noted the submissions made on behalf of the state, which justified the cancellation on grounds of technical and financial viability.
The court’s appreciation of the Dharavi residents, while not directly related to the legal issue, set a tone of respect for the community that the project is meant to serve. It also underscored the importance of considering ground realities when evaluating public projects.
Analysis and Implications
The case raises several critical questions for public procurement law. The primary issue is the extent to which a government can cancel a tender after bids have been opened. The Supreme Court has previously held in cases like that the state’s decisions in contractual matters are subject to only on grounds of , , or violation of . Here, the state justified the cancellation by citing the need to include additional land for viability. The question is whether this justification is sufficient to override the expectations of a highest bidder.
Another significant aspect is the transparency of the re-tendering process. SecLink alleged that the fresh tender was tailored to suit Adani’s capabilities, particularly regarding the revised terms. If proven, this could constitute a violation of , which mandates equality and non- in state action.
The case also touches on the balance between and private rights. While the government’s decision to expand the project to include railway land may serve larger , it must not be used as a tool to favour a particular entity. The court’s scrutiny of the decision-making process will be crucial.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s oral appreciation of the Dharavi residents, though , reflects a holistic view of justice that goes beyond black-letter law. It serves as a reminder that behind every large urban project are real people whose lives are affected. As the hearing continues, the legal community will watch closely for the court’s ruling on the tender challenge, which will have far-reaching implications for government contracting and the redevelopment of urban slums across India.
