SC holds fairness in tender process is non-negotiable; arbitrary award of public work unconstitutional
The Supreme Court has held that even a single instance of awarding a public contract through a tainted or arbitrary process violates Article 14 of the Constitution, reiterating that fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness are essential in public procurement.
The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. … of 2026), by order dated April 1, 2026.
The dispute arose from the award of a public contract by the State authorities, which was challenged on the ground that the tender process was vitiated by procedural irregularities and lack of fairness. The High Court had interfered with the award of the contract, holding that the process adopted was arbitrary and contrary to established norms governing public tenders.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the State authorities approached the Supreme Court.
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the deviation, if any, in the tender process did not materially affect the outcome and that interference with contractual matters should be minimal in exercise of judicial review.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the process was fundamentally flawed and lacked transparency, thereby violating the guarantee of equality under Article 14. It was submitted that even a single arbitrary act in public contracting is sufficient to vitiate the entire process.
The Court emphasised that the State and its instrumentalities are bound to adhere to constitutional principles while awarding public contracts. It observed that:
- Article 14 applies squarely to State action in contractual matters, requiring fairness, transparency and absence of arbitrariness.
- The legitimacy of a tender process lies not only in the final outcome but in the integrity of the decision-making process itself.
- Even one instance of a tainted or biased process is sufficient to render the action unconstitutional.
The Bench observed that:
“Even a single instance of award of public work through a tainted process would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court reiterated settled principles governing judicial review of tenders, noting that while courts ordinarily exercise restraint, interference is warranted where the process is arbitrary, mala fide, or intended to favour a particular party.
It further underscored that procedural fairness is not a mere technical requirement but a constitutional mandate, and any deviation undermining equality cannot be sustained.
Upholding the reasoning of the High Court, the Supreme Court:
- Affirmed the finding that the tender process was vitiated by arbitrariness
- Declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment setting aside the award of the contract
- Reiterated that public authorities must strictly adhere to transparent and fair procedures in awarding contracts
The decision reinforces that constitutional guarantees under Article 14 extend fully to public procurement, and any taint in the process—however isolated—renders the action legally unsustainable.
