Highlighting the fact that the requirements of geo-tagging are applied in an overly technical and arbitrary manner, causing the rejection of bids in an unjustified way, the Supreme Court has asked the High Courts to be vigilant and ensure that there is no misuse of the clause of geo-tagging in the tender document.

The Apex Court rendered such findings while dealing with a matter where the petitioner, after offering his bid in pursuance of the tender notice issued by the respondent, stood disqualified at the stage of technical evaluation on the ground of his failure to produce the certificate of the Competent Authority authenticating the geo-tagging.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “We are of the view that High Courts should remain vigilant and see to it that there is no misuse of this particular clause of geotagging in the tender document. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should also endeavour and try to read in between the lines if a party alleges that injustice has been done on this technical evaluation of geo-tagging. We say so because it is very easy for the authorities to knock out a genuine bidder on such flimsy ground and show undue favour to any dubious bidder. We re-iterate what we have said in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above respectively.”

AOR Ashok Kumar Gupta II represented the Appellant while Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench highlighted the fact that there have been many litigations wherein, at the stage of technical evaluation, a bid offered by a particular party would stand rejected on the ground of purported failure to produce a certificate of the competent authority authorizing geo-tagging. “We are now very much sure that this clause of geo-tagging in the tender document is proving to be detrimental to the interest of a genuine bidder”, it added.

The Bench took note of the fact that the role of geo-tagging has gained prominence in public tender agreements, with its aim being to enhance transparency, accountability, and authenticity in the tendering process. “The main objective is to confirm that the bidder has genuinely inspected the project site, understands the ground realities and local conditions, and is aware of the nature, scope, and practical requirements of the work before participating in the tender process”, it added.

The Bench also clarified that if a tenderer fails to produce a certificate of the competent authority authorising geo-tagging, though he had applied for such a certificate well in time, his tender cannot be rejected on this ground. “This is because having such a certificate is not in his hand. If the tendering authority wants to eliminate a tenderer, all that is required is to get such a certificate withhold. Therefore, all that is required to be seen is whether the tenderer had applied for such a certificate in time. If the tenderer had applied for such a certificate well within time yet not issued, then it becomes a curable defect which can be cured even at a subsequent stage”, it added.

The Bench made it clear that minor deviations of GPS coordinates, differences in timestamps, or loss of metadata at the moment of upload are considered by authorities as significant defects, making the entire bid invalid. As per the Bench, such deviations cannot be a ground for disqualification, technical or otherwise. The Bench thus disposed of the appeal in the afore stated terms.

Cause Title: Vidyasagar Vijaykumar Kamboj v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 697)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Ashok Kumar Gupta II, Advocates Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Suraj Salunkhe, AOR M. Veeraragavan

Respondent: Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, AOR Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR M/s Deshpandes And Mandliks, Advocates Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Mohit Gautam, Paras Dnyaneshwar Bhirud, Shirish K Deshpande

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice JB PardiwalaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.