Calcutta High Court Upholds Tender Conditions For Surveillance & Web Streaming Of West Bengal Assembly Elections 2026

The Court held that prescribing experience-based eligibility criteria did not suffer from arbitrariness or irrationality.

The Court was hearing an appeal arising from an order of the Single Judge dismissing a writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria contained in the RFP issued by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed: “…considering the variety of the work to be undertaken by the bidder and the uniqueness of the West Bengal elections, involving past history of pre-poll and post-poll violence, prescribing a criterion that the bidders who had executed similar nature of work in three states would be eligible, is not unreasonable ... the scope of the work undoubtedly requires the installation of CCTV cameras, ... moreover, the GPS tracking system is required in the vehicles in order to ensure security, transparency and real-time monitoring during the elections, ... the GPS device will allow the election authorities to track the exact location of the vehicle, whether the same has taken the designated route, whether the same has been stopped in any unauthorised location, whether the vehicle reached the polling station or the strong rooms on time, ... the risk of interference with the EVM machines can be reduced”.

Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate S.N. Mookherjee appeared for the respondents.

Background

The appellant challenged the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal dated February 9, 2026, issued by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, for the selection of an agency to provide a surveillance system for live web streaming of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Elections, 2026.

It was contended that the eligibility criteria, including the requirement of cumulative experience in live election web streaming totalling not less than 1,30,000 cameras, along with experience in installation and operation of at least 3000 CCTV cameras at counting centres, were unreasonable, irrational and anti-competitive, and created an artificial distinction excluding otherwise capable bidders.

The appellant submitted that commissioning and installation of CCTV cameras were ancillary to the main work of live streaming and did not warrant a separate experience requirement.

The appellant further challenged the requirement of execution of at least three “full state” orders of live web streaming as excessive and discriminatory, given the variation in scale of elections across states.

It was also contended that inclusion of experience in execution of projects involving vehicles fitted with GPS for real-time tracking had no rational nexus with the primary object of the tender and imposed an arbitrary restriction on participation. The appellant relied on modifications made in similar tenders in other states to contend that such conditions were not essential and restricted fair competition.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the scale and sensitivity of the West Bengal elections justified stringent eligibility criteria, including prior experience in similar large-scale operations. It was argued that such requirements were directly linked to ensuring efficient and secure conduct of elections.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scope and scale of the work under the RFP and noted that it involved monitoring over 80,000 polling stations, multiple counting centres, check posts, flying squad vehicles, and other sensitive locations through live streaming and surveillance systems.

It held that the requirement of prior experience in executing similar projects, including installation and operation of CCTV systems and GPS-based tracking, had a direct nexus with the nature of the work and could not be termed arbitrary.

The Court observed: “In such a situation, if a more stringent provisions with regard to experience in not only web streaming from polling stations, but in installation and operation of CCTV cameras for the surveillance of the counting centres and storage of data etc., as also, in operating vehicles fitted with GPS for real time vehicle tracking system are required by the tendering authority, the same cannot be classified as either unfair, unjust or irrational”.

The Court further emphasised that experience serves as an objective criterion to assess the capability, reliability, and efficiency of bidders, particularly in projects involving public interest and operational complexity.

“The project requires organisational infrastructure, manpower, technical staff, financial and operational capacity and capability to train the Returning Officers, Electoral Registration Officers, and District Election Officers. Thus, a greater amount of experience, with stricter conditions than usual, cannot be held to be arbitrary, considering the object sought to be achieved, i.e. free, fair and peaceful elections in West Bengal. Moreover, the scope of the work is based on the instructions from the Election Commission of India,” the Bench added.

The Court also rejected allegations that the conditions were tailored to favour specific bidders, noting that “the conditions cannot be said to be tailor-made and favouring a particular bidder or class of bidders”, while further adding that “the threshold of mala fide intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality and perversity, must be met before the constitutional court can interfere with the eligibility criteria.”

Reiterating settled principles of judicial review in tender matters, the Court held that the terms and conditions of the NIT were within the domain of the tenderer and not open to judicial review unless they were arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

The Court relied on precedents including Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (2022), Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012), and Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994), to reiterate that “unless there is overwhelming public interest involved, the courts should not interfere with the terms and conditions of a contract, especially the eligibility criteria, which requires experience”.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court, accordingly, concluded that “the respondents acted within their authority in prescribing the experience criteria… It is neither the appellant’s choice nor the appellant’s prerogative to require bifurcation of the eligibility criteria or relaxation thereof”.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, affirming the validity of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the RFP for the West Bengal Assembly Elections 2026.

Cause Title: Innovatiview India Limited v. The Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:92-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Mukherjee, Dhananjay Nayak, Anuj Saxena, Anuj Ruhela and Sourav Sardar, Advocates.

Respondents: S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate with Anamika Pandey, Naman Choudhury and Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocates.

Click here to read/download Judgment