Holding

The past‑performance restriction is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and must be struck down.

Summary

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company with experience supplying sports kits in several Indian states, challenged a tender issued by the State of Chhattisgarh for supplying sports kits to government schools because the tender required bidders to have supplied goods worth at least Rs.6 crore to Chhattisgarh government agencies in the last three years. The High Court upheld the condition, but the Supreme Court examined whether the restriction was reasonable, non‑discriminatory and had a rational nexus to the objective of quality supply. Relying on constitutional principles of equality (Art.14) and the freedom to carry on business (Art.19(1)(g)), the Court held that the condition created an artificial barrier, excluded competent out‑of‑state bidders, and promoted cartelisation. The Court found the justification of Maoist‑affected areas untenable for sports kits, which are not security‑sensitive. Consequently, the tender condition and the High Court orders were quashed, and the appeals were allowed, permitting the State to re‑issue a fresh tender.

Issues considered

Whether the past‑performance restriction requiring bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs.6 crore to Chhattisgarh government agencies in the last three years is reasonable and non‑discriminatory under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Whether the restriction has a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring effective supply of sports kits to government schools.
Whether the State's justification of security concerns in a Maoist‑affected area is sufficient to uphold the tender condition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.19(1)(g)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the impugned tender condition meets the test of reasonableness and fairness and or whether the same constitutes an arbitrary criteria which excludes the other eligible bidders from participation thereby violating, the mandate contained in Arts.14 Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19(1)(g) – Tender – Tender condition – Test of reasonableness and fairness – State of Chhattisgarh issued tender notices for the supply of Sports Kits to government schools – Tender

Subjects

Tender conditionTest of reasonableness and fairnessArbitrary criteriaEligible biddersState of ChhattisgarhTender notices for supply of Sports KitsGovernment schoolsPast performance restrictionTender processRational nexusPublic procurementPublic exchequerDoctrine of level playing fieldCartelisationMaoist affected areaFundamental right to carry out business

Judgment

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 301 : 2025 INSC 1182

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 12487 of 2025)
06 October 2025
[Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the impugned tender condition meets the
test of reasonableness and fairness and or whether the same
constitutes an arbitrary criteria which excludes the other eligible
bidders from participation thereby violating, the mandate contained
in Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19(1)(g) – Tender – Tender
condition – Test of reasonableness and fairness – State
of Chhattisgarh issued tender notices for the supply of
Sports Kits to government schools – Tender condition as
regards past performance restriction that bidders must have
supplied sports goods worth at least Rs.6.00 crores to State
Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in last three financial
years – Appellant rendered ineligible for participation in the
tender process – Writ petition by the appellant challenging
the validity of the tender condition – Dismissed by the High
Court – Correctness:
Held: Impugned tender condition arbitrary, unreasonable and
discriminatory – Does not have any rational nexus to the object of
ensuring effective supply of Sports Kits to the children in State – It
offends the mandate of Art.14 and freedom of trade guaranteed
by Art.19(1)(g) – Impugned tender condition has the effect of
excluding bidders who though otherwise financially sound and
technically competent, have no experience of supply of sports
goods to the State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in past
three years – Object of public procurement is to secure quality
goods and services for the benefit of public exchequer – Said
object can be achieved by requiring the bidders to demonstrate
financial capacity, technical experience, and past performance in
* Author
302 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

contracts of similar nature, regardless of place of performance of
the contract – To confine the eligibility to participate in the tender,
within one State is not only irrational but is also disproportionate
to the goal of ensuring effective delivery of Sports Kits – State
while it enjoys the freedom to prescribe the conditions in the
tender, cannot exercise that power in a manner that infringes
upon constitutional guarantees, by closing the market to outsiders
without just cause – Doctrine of level playing field requires
that gates of competition be opened to all who are equally
placed – Impugned tender condition excludes the competent and
experienced suppliers, who may have executed contracts of far
greater magnitude in other States or for the Central Government
departments, from participating in the tender and has the impact of
promoting cartelisation – Justification advanced by the State that
Chhattisgarh being a Maoist affected area and only those with past
experience of supply in the State to State Government agencies
of Chhattisgarh can be relied upon, untenable – Impugned orders
passed by the High Court as well as impugned tender notices
quashed and set aside. [Paras 17-23]

Constitution of India – Art.19 (1) (g) – Doctrine of level playing
field – Concept of:
Held: Doctrine of level playing field is an important concept while
construing Art.19(1)(g) – Art.19(1)(g) confers fundamental right
to carry out business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the
doctrine of level playing field however, subject to public interest –
Doctrine of level playing field provides the space within which
equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve
larger public interest – Doctrine of level playing field requires that
all equally placed competitors must be given an equal opportunity
to participate in trade and commerce – It is designed to prevent
the State from skewing the market in favour of few by erecting
artificial barriers. [Paras 16, 18]

Case Law Cited
Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors.
[2004] Supp. 6 SCR 496 : (2005) 1 SCC 679; Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. [1979] 3
SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628; Directorate
of Education & Ors. v. EDUCOMP Datamatics Ltd. & Ors. [2004]
2 SCR 1010 : (2004) 4 SCC 19; Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. v.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 303

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors. [2005] 3 SCR 1108 : (2005) 4 SCC
435; Shimni Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. West Bengal Transport
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [2010] 6 SCR
1110 : (2010) 6 SCC 303; Icomm Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water
Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr. [2019] 2 SCR 984 : (2019) 4
SCC 401; Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [2021] 7
SCR 571 : (2022) 1 SCC 165; UOI & Ors. v. Bharat Forge Ltd. &
Anr. [2022] 17 SCR 1012 : (2022) 17 SCC 188 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Tender condition; Test of reasonableness and fairness;
Arbitrary criteria; Eligible bidders; State of Chhattisgarh; Tender
notices for supply of Sports Kits; Government schools; Past
performance restriction; Tender process; Rational nexus; Public
procurement; Public exchequer; Doctrine of level playing field;
Cartelisation; Maoist affected area; Fundamental right to carry out
business.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12487 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2025 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPC No. 4266 of 2025
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 12488 and 12486 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
M. Dutt, Sr. Adv., Nitish Kumar Singh, Abhishek Raj, Amit Kumar
Thakur, Harsh Abhishek, Anil Kumar Soni, Anand Kumar Soni,
Niteen Kumar Sinha.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Praphulla Kumar Bharat, Sr. Adv./A.G., Balbir Singh, Sunil Otwani,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D. Singh, Ms. Ishika Neogi,
Pallav Mongia, Anubhav Mishra, Ms. Kashish Lalwani, Amit Soni,
Rajat Khattry, Abhay Kumar, Shagun Ruhil.
304 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to orders dated 11.08.2025 and
12.08.2025 passed in three Writ Petitions preferred by the appellant.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh by the said orders, has repelled the
challenge to the impugned tender condition contained in three tender
notices dated 21.07.2025 which were issued for supply of Sports Kits
to the students of Government Primary School, Government Upper
Primary Schools and Government High and Higher Secondary
Schools in the State of Chhattisgarh.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals which lie in a narrow
compass, are as under:

(I) FACTS
4. The appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act,
2013 and claims to have experience of supplying Sports Kits to
various Departments of the States of Bihar, Karnataka, Gujarat
and Government of NCT Delhi. The respondent No. 1 is State of
Chhattisgarh whereas respondent No. 2 is State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office, Department of
School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh.
5. The Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) Scheme is a
Scheme for providing for supplementary nutrition, immunization and
pre-school education to the children, launched in the year 1975, is
a popular flagship program of the Central Government. The said
Scheme provides for the integrated package of services, for the
holistic development of the child and is a centrally sponsored scheme
implemented by State Governments and the Union Territories. The
Scheme is largely funded by the Government of India.
6. The Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh State Project Office, Department
of School Education, Chhattisgarh published three tender notices
(hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned tender notices”) on
21.07.2025 through Government-e-Market Place Portal for supply
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 305

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

of Sports Kits to the students of Primary School, Upper Primary
Schools and High and Higher Secondary Schools run by the State
Government in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Sports Kits were to
be supplied to 5540 cluster resource centres situated across all 33
districts in the State. The tender value of the contract was Rs.15.24
crores, Rs.13.08 crores and Rs.11.49 crores.
7. Section III(A) of the impugned tender notices prescribe qualification
criteria with additional terms and conditions. The appellant was
aggrieved by additional terms and conditions namely, condition
Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 13, which rendered the appellant ineligible for
participation in the impugned tender process. It, therefore, submitted
a representation on 29.07.2025 to the State Project Director, Samagra
Shiksha, School Education Department, Chhattisgarh. The aforesaid
representation failed to evoke any response. The appellant thereupon
filed three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025,
Writ Petition (C) No. 4263 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4274
of 2025, before the High Court in which validity of the aforesaid
impugned tender conditions was challenged.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition by way of corrigendum dated
07.08.2025 condition Nos. 1, 11, and 13 were deleted. The Division
Bench of the High Court by a common order dated 11.08.2025 passed
in Civil Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ Petition (C) No. 4263
of 2025 and by an order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition
(C) No. 4274 of 2025, inter alia held that the impugned eligibility
condition namely, condition No. 4 with regard to past performance
is of similar nature and purpose, as, the condition in Association
of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors1. It was further
held that respondents have demonstrated that the impugned tender
condition is not unique to the State of Chhattisgarh but is prevalent in
other States such as Gujarat, Assam, Delhi, Orissa and Jharkhand. It
was further found by the High Court that a contract containing a similar
condition, was awarded to the appellant in the State of Jharkhand.
The High Court repelled the challenge to impugned tender condition
on the ground of discrimination and unreasonableness.
9. It was further held by the Division Bench that State is entitled to
prescribe the condition in the impugned tender notices, to ensure

1 (2005) 1 SCC 679
306 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that selection of the most capable and reliable bidder takes place, to
execute the public project of significant scale, sensitivity and public
importance. It was also held that impugned tender condition is neither
violative of Article 14 nor Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India
and relates to legitimate object of ensuring technical competence,
financial strength, operational capacity as well as long term reliability
of successful bidder. Accordingly, the writ petitions preferred by the
appellant were dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, these
appeals arise for our consideration.

(II) SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that High Court
has failed to appreciate that decision of this Court in Association
of Registration Plates (supra) has no application to the obtaining
factual matrix of the case and therefore, erred in placing reliance
on the said decision while deciding the writ petitions. It is further
submitted that the impugned tender condition which prescribes
that bidders must have supplied Sports Kits worth at least Rs.6.00
crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh
in last 3 financial years is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of
the Constitution of India, as it excludes competent suppliers from
outside the State and discourages wider participation and fosters
cartelisation. It is urged that the impugned tender condition excludes
the appellant from participating in the impugned tender. It is therefore
urged that the impugned common orders are liable to be quashed
and set aside and the impugned tender condition is liable to be
struck down.

(III) SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2
submitted that the tendering authority is well within its power to frame
the impugned tender condition. It is further submitted that in view of
geographic/social conditions of State of Chhattisgarh, the impugned
tender condition is incorporated to safeguard timely delivery, ensure
quality compliance and prevent supply chain disruptions. It is also
submitted that impugned condition is prevalent in other States as
well. It is pointed out that on 21.08.2025, financial bids have already
been opened and the successful bidders have been identified. It is
urged that in case this Court interferes with the impugned tender
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 307

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

process, the consequent re-tendering would consume a considerable
time and substantial portion of academic year would stand forfeited.
12. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 1 has adopted the
submissions made on behalf of respondent No. 2 and has submitted
that the impugned tender condition has been incorporated with an
object to ensure that successful bidder has the knowledge of the
topography of the State of Chhattisgarh which is a Naxal affected
State, so that Sports Kits could be timely delivered to the children
of Government Schools in the State.

(IV) ANALYSIS
13. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
record. For the facility of reference the impugned tender condition
is extracted below :
“(4) Past Performance Restriction : Bidders must have
supplied sports goods worth at least Rs.6.00 crores
(cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh
in the last three financial years (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-
24 or 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25).”
14. The solitary question which arises for consideration in the instant
appeals is whether the aforesaid impugned tender condition meets
the test of reasonableness and fairness and or whether the same
constitutes an arbitrary criteria which excludes the other eligible
bidders from participation thereby violating, the mandate contained
in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
15. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to briefly advert to contours
of judicial review with regard to tender conditions which are well
delineated. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.2, held
that discretion of the Government in granting the largesse, is not
unlimited and the Government cannot give or withhold largesse in its
arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It has further been held that
Government cannot without adequate reason exclude any person
from dealing with it or take away largesse arbitrarily. It also held that
activities of the Government have a public element and therefore

2 (1979) 3 SCC 489; AIR 1979 SC 1628
308 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

there should be fairness and equality. It is well settled in law that
Government must have free hand in setting the terms of the tender
and the Court cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed
by the Authority merely because it feels some other terms in the
tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical3. It is equally well
settled legal proposition that in the matter of formulating conditions
of tender document unless the action of tendering authority is found
to be arbitrary and malicious the Court would not interfere4. It is also
well settled in law that a Court cannot sit over judgment on what
should be the eligibility criteria in the tender notice unless the same
is arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by mala fides.5
16. The principle of non-discrimination is embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Article 14 has to be read in conjunction with
Rights conferred by other Articles like Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India refers to Right to Life
which includes ‘opportunity’ as well. The doctrine of level playing
field is an important concept while construing Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution of India. Article 19(1) (g) confers Fundamental Right to
carry out business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine
of level playing field which is however, subject to public interest.
The doctrine of level playing field provides the space within which
equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as to subserve
larger public interest. 6
17. In the backdrop of well settled legal principles, we advert to the fact
of the case in hand. The present tender is for supply of Sports Kits to
the students of Primary School, Upper Primary School and High and
Higher Secondary School run by the State Government in the State
of Chhattisgarh. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the impugned
tender notices must have rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved i.e., supply of good quality Sports Kits to students of the
school, at the best price. The eligibility criteria in impugned notices
therefore, should be framed in a manner which encourages wider

3 Directorate of Education & Ors. v. EDUCOMP Datamatics Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 19
4 Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. v. Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 435 - Shimni Utsch India Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr. v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors (2010) 6 SCC 303.
5 Icomm Tele Ltd vs. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr. (2019) 4 SCC 401; Uflex
Ltd. V. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 165
6 UOI & Ors. Bharat Forge Ltd. & ANR. (2022) 17 SCC 188
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 309

Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

participation and secures the best prize for the State, which in turn
safeguards the public exchequer.
18. This Court in BHARAT FORGE supra has enunciated the doctrine
level playing field and has stated that the same finds expression in
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The doctrine of level playing field
requires that all equally placed competitors must be given an equal
opportunity to participate in trade and commerce. It is designed to
prevent the State from skewing the market in favour of few by erecting
artificial barriers. In the instant case, the impugned tender condition
has the effect of excluding bidders who though otherwise financially
sound and technically competent, have no experience of supply of
sports goods to the State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in
past three years. The State by linking the eligibility criteria with past
local supplies has created an artificial barrier, against the suppliers
who had no past dealing with the State of Chhattisgarh. The impugned
condition curtails the fundamental rights of the bidders, who have
been ineligible to participate in the tenders.
19. The object of public procurement is to secure quality goods and
services for the benefit of public exchequer. The said object can be
achieved by requiring the bidders to demonstrate financial capacity,
technical experience, and past performance in contracts of similar
nature, regardless of place of performance of the contract. To confine
the eligibility to participate in the tender, within one State is not only
irrational but is also disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective
delivery of Sports Kits.
20. Such a restriction, therefore, cannot be justified as reasonable within
the meaning of 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The State while it
enjoys the freedom to prescribe the conditions in the tender, cannot
exercise that power in a manner that infringes upon constitutional
guarantees, by closing the market to outsiders without just cause.
The doctrine of level playing field requires that gates of competition
be opened to all who are equally placed. The impugned tender
condition excludes the competent and experienced suppliers, who
may have executed contracts of far greater magnitude in other States
or for the Central Government departments, from participating in the
tender and has the impact of promoting cartelisation. The impugned
condition operates as a closed door to outsiders and restricts the
wider participation of bidders and restricts competition. The impugned
310 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

tender condition, therefore, is violative of Article 14 and also offends
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
21. The justification advanced by the State that Chhattisgarh being a
Maoist affected area and only those with past experience of supply in
the State to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh can be relied
upon, is untenable for several reasons. Firstly, the tender in question
is not for security sensitive equipment but is for supply of Sports Kits
which does not involve, any special risk or security repercussions.
Secondly, only some districts of Chhattisgarh are affected by Maoist
activities, and it is incorrect to treat the entire State, as uniformly
affected by Naxalites, for exclusion of other eligible bidders. Thirdly,
a successful bidder, who may not be conversant with the topography
can engage a local supply chain to supply the Sports Kits.
22. In the light of aforesaid discussion this Court finds that impugned
tender condition is arbitrary, unreasonable and is discriminatory. The
same does not have any rational nexus to the object of ensuring
effective supply of Sports Kits to the children in State. It offends the
mandate of Article 14 and freedom of trade guaranteed by Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(V) CONCLUSION
23. In the result, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025
passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4266 of 2025, Writ Petition (C) No. 4263
of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 4274 of 2025 respectively by the High
Court as well as impugned tender notices dated 21.07.2025 issued
by Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh
for supply of Sports Kits to students of Government Primary, Upper
Primary, High and Higher Secondary Schools are quashed and set
aside. Needless to state that respondents are at liberty to issue
fresh notices inviting tenders. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain