Delhi High Court sets aside pre‑qualification exclusion for opaque client verification; directs bid to proceed to technical evaluation

A bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard a writ petition challenging the pre‑qualification exclusion of Madras Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. from the tender process under IFB No. NISG/SLUDI‑2025 for the Sri Lanka Unique Digital Identity (SL‑UDI) project, and examined whether the evaluation procedure adopted by the National Institute for Smart Government (NISG) complied with the Tender conditions and principles of fairness and transparency.

The High Court held that the Evaluation Committee acted contrary to the Tender by conducting undisclosed verification with a petitioner’s client at the pre‑qualification stage and by relying on a secret adverse input to disqualify the petitioner. The Court found the procedure “neither contemplated nor intended under the Tender document” and characterised the reliance on undisclosed material as opaque and arbitrary. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the aforenoted clauses, we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the Respondent No. 1/NISG’s Evaluation Committee for seeking verification from the clients of the bidder(s) at the pre‑qualification stage is neither contemplated nor intended under the Tender document. The present Tender document contemplates that pre‑evaluation of the bid will be carried out solely on the basis of documents filed by the bidder in terms of Section III and IV of the Tender. The inputs sought from the clients of the bidders at this pre‑qualification stage is therefore contrary to the terms of the bid as this verification is specifically contemplated at post‑qualification stage.” The Court therefore set aside the petitioner’s exclusion and directed Respondent No.1 to proceed with the petitioner’s bid to the second (technical) stage along with the other qualified bidders.

Background
The petitioner participated in a two‑stage tender issued by NISG as Project Management Consultant for the SL‑UDI Project. Six bidders, including the petitioner, submitted pre‑qualification bids supported by client certificates and other documents mandated by Clauses in Sections III and IV. NISG declared five bidders as pre‑qualified and excluded the petitioner without issuing any speaking order or communicating reasons. NISG later relied on an adverse input received from one of the petitioner’s clients during due diligence and produced that input in a sealed cover before the Court; the client, however, continued to engage the petitioner and had issued performance certificates that were on the record.

The petitioner challenged the exclusion as violative of Article 226 and Article 227, asserting breach of the procedural regime in the Tender, lack of transparency and denial of natural justice. NISG defended the verification on the basis of confidentiality clause 29.1 of the ITB and the need for due diligence, relying also on MeitY Model RFP practice. The Court examined Tender clauses (notably ITB Clauses 13.2, 24.2, 33, 37 and Section III Clauses 3.1–3.2), and held that the Tender repeatedly represented pre‑qualification would be determined on the basis of documents submitted by the bidder and that verification of client certificates was specifically envisaged at the post‑qualification (due diligence) stage under Clause 3.1.6.

The Court concluded that undertaking undisclosed client verification at the pre‑qualification stage, and disqualifying the petitioner solely on a secret adverse input which contradicted the client’s own performance certificates, breached the Transparency Principle and principles of fairness. The bench rejected the sealed‑cover practice, relying on precedents including Madhyam Broadcasting and Commander Amit Kumar Sharma, and observed that there was “no justification for the sealed cover process” which rendered the tender process opaque. The writ petition was allowed; the petitioner’s exclusion was set aside and the respondent was directed to admit the petitioner to Step‑2 (technical evaluation). Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(C) 18934/2025 & CM APPL. 78836/2025 CM APPL. 1350/2026
Case Title: Madras Security Printers Private Limited v. National Institute for Smart Government
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Daksh Pandit; Mr. Darpan Sachdeva; Mr. Rajat Bector, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vikas Mehta; Ms. Mansi Jain; Mr. Parth Tanwar (for R‑1); Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC; Mr. Akash Gupta, GP; Mr. Rajat Sharma; Ms. Himanshi Singh; Ms. Monalisha Pradhan; Ms. Priya Khurana (for R‑2)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 106