Case Note

Public Procurement and Equal Treatment

The Supreme Court examined whether a tender condition requiring prior supply of sports goods to Chhattisgarh Government agencies could validly exclude otherwise eligible bidders, and reiterated the importance of a level playing field in public procurement.

Case Note 7 min read 6 Oct 2025

Background

Sports kit bag, footballs and water bottle outside a school building

The appeals arose from three tender notices issued by the Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office, Department of School Education, for the supply of Sports Kits to students of government schools.

The tenders, issued on 21 July 2025 through the Government e-Marketplace, covered 5,540 cluster resource centres across all 33 districts of Chhattisgarh, with a combined value of approximately ₹39.81 crore (₹15.24 crore, ₹13.08 crore and ₹11.49 crore).

Among the eligibility conditions, bidders were required to have supplied sports goods worth at least ₹6 crore, cumulatively, to Chhattisgarh Government agencies during the preceding three financial years.

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience in supplying Sports Kits to several State Governments and the Government of NCT of Delhi, was rendered ineligible by this and other conditions. It submitted a representation on 29 July 2025 but received no response.

Key Events

21 July 2025	Three tender notices issued by the State Project Office for supply of Sports Kits to government schools.
29 July 2025	Vinishma submitted a representation challenging the eligibility conditions.
7 August 2025	Corrigendum deleted three of the challenged conditions. The past-performance condition remained.
11 & 12 August 2025	Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petitions.
6 October 2025	Supreme Court heard the three connected appeals and delivered a common judgment.

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

Vinishma challenged the tender conditions through three writ petitions before the Chhattisgarh High Court. While the petitions were pending, a corrigendum dated 7 August 2025 deleted three of the conditions, but the past-performance requirement remained.

The High Court dismissed the petitions by orders dated 11 and 12 August 2025. It held that the condition was comparable to one examined in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India, that similar requirements existed in other States, and that the appellant itself had received a contract with a similar condition in Jharkhand.

The High Court found the condition to be a legitimate measure to ensure technical competence, financial strength, operational capacity and reliability, and held that it did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Vinishma approached the Supreme Court against these orders. The three appeals were heard together.

Issues Before the Court

Validity of tender condition
Whether the requirement of prior supply of sports goods to Chhattisgarh Government agencies was a reasonable condition or arbitrarily exclusionary.
Scope of judicial review
The extent to which courts can interfere with tender conditions prescribed by the State.
Constitutional guarantees
Whether the condition violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Level playing field
Whether the condition was consistent with the principle of equal treatment and fair competition in public procurement.

Submissions Before the Court

The parties made the following submissions:

Vinishma Technologies

The High Court incorrectly relied on Association of Registration Plates, which arose in a different factual context.
The requirement of prior supplies to Chhattisgarh Government agencies excluded competent suppliers from outside the State despite experience with other States and Central Government departments.
The condition discouraged wider participation, restricted competition and could foster cartelisation.
It violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and should be removed.

State of Chhattisgarh

The condition was within the discretion of the tendering authority and intended to ensure timely delivery, quality compliance and continuity of supply.
Prior experience within Chhattisgarh demonstrated familiarity with the State’s topography and would assist in effective implementation.
Similar requirements existed in other States and the appellant had itself received a contract with a similar condition in Jharkhand.
Financial bids had already been opened and successful bidders identified. Interference would cause delay and affect the academic year.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and quashed the tender notices. The key aspects of its reasoning are summarised below.

Judicial review of tender conditions
Government authorities have considerable freedom to prescribe tender conditions. However, such conditions may be examined where they are arbitrary, discriminatory or inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
Object of the procurement
The tenders sought supply of Sports Kits to students in government schools. Eligibility criteria must have a rational nexus with the objective of securing good-quality goods at the best available price and should encourage wider participation.
Level playing field
Equally placed competitors should have an equal opportunity to participate in trade and commerce. Restricting eligibility to past supplies within one State creates an artificial barrier and excludes otherwise competent suppliers.
Relevance of past performance
Financial capacity, technical competence and past performance in similar contracts can be relevant to eligibility. Such experience need not be confined to one State unless there is a sufficient justification.
State’s geographical justification
The procurement concerned Sports Kits and did not involve any special security risk. Only some districts of Chhattisgarh are affected by Naxalite activity. The entire State could not be treated as uniformly affected, and a successful bidder could engage a local supply chain for delivery. The restriction was therefore not justified.
Effect on competition
The condition discouraged wider participation, restricted competition and could lead to cartelisation. It was disproportionate to the stated objective of ensuring effective delivery.

Decision

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals as follows:

Set aside the High Court’s orders dated 11 and 12 August 2025.
Quashed the three tender notices dated 21 July 2025.
Held that the past-performance condition was arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
Held that the condition violated Article 14 and the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Left it open to the State to issue fresh tender notices.
The three connected appeals were accordingly allowed.

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court held that a tender condition requiring prior supplies of sports goods to Chhattisgarh Government agencies was an unreasonable and discriminatory restriction. Such a condition excluded competent suppliers without sufficient justification, restricted competition and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The tender notices and High Court orders were set aside, with liberty to the State to issue fresh tenders.

Source Supreme Court of India, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2025 INSC 1182 (6 October 2025).