Public procurement contracts are indispensable in government projects, enabling efficient delivery of services and infrastructure. As governments worldwide grapple with the complexity and scale of modern developmental needs, collaboration with private sector becomes inevitable.

Navigating public procurement contracts, however, poses significant challenges for private entities, including delays, contract disputes, and opaque decision-making. 

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent landmark verdict in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour vs The Chief Executive Officer, has highlighted the need to maintain the sanctity of tenders in public procurement. It opined that the sanctity lies in upholding fairness. 

Once a contract comes into existence through a valid tendering process, its termination must strictly adhere to the terms. Executive powers should intervene only in exceptional circumstances, and even then with caution. 

Courts have a duty to uphold the integrity of properly conducted tenders, ensuring that public interest in honoring contractual obligations is prioritised over arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. The courts should intervene in cases where contracts are jeopardised by arbitrary actions, whether due to technicalities, policy shifts, or claims of public interest, to maintain the reliability and fairness of the contracting process.

Also read
Confusions ahead. New rules leave stakeholders to navigate the complexities of third-party guarantees

IBBI’s proposed ‘guarantees’ under fire

Risky move: By confining arbitration to matters where the disputed amounts are less than ₹10 crore, the guidelines are likely to lead to an increase in litigation and extend dispute resolution timelines

Guidelines diminish arbitration’s role in government procurement disputes

Restoring balance: Both judgments highlight the essential principles of procedural fairness and the consideration of evidence in arbitration

Upholding tenets of fairness in arbitration

The apex court held that integrity of contracts is the cornerstone of stability and predictability in legal and commercial relations. When public authorities enter into agreements, they foster legitimate expectations that the State will uphold its commitments. 

Chilling effect

Arbitrary or unjustified contract terminations undermine these expectations and diminish the trust of private entities in the public procurement process and tenders. Once a contract is established, there is a rightful expectation that its obligations will be fulfilled and its associated rights respected, barring any breaches or non-compliance with agreed terms. 

The SC cautioned public authorities against casually circumventing or abandoning contractual obligations through executive actions that exceed the terms of the contract. While acknowledging the State’s authority to modify or terminate contracts, the court emphasised that such decisions must be genuinely motivated by public interest or policy changes. 

These considerations should be thoroughly deliberated upon and clearly documented in both the decision-making process and the final decision itself. Failing to do so, the court warned, could have a chilling effect, undermining the integrity of tendering processes and deterring potential bidders, making winning less attractive than not participating at all. 

(The writers are advocates at Trinity Chambers, Delhi)

Related Topics