CHENNAI: The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the tender floated by the Election Commission of India for webcasting at polling stations and installation of surveillance cameras at counting centres.
In view of the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections in the State, the Election Commission had invited tenders for undertaking webcasting in approximately 75,000 polling booths and for installing 3,744 surveillance cameras at counting centres.
The tender conditions had stipulated that only companies with an annual turnover of at least Rs 100 crore would be eligible to participate, and have experience in deploying 1.5 lakh cameras for webcasting at polling stations and installing at least 2,500 surveillance cameras at counting centres.
Challenging these conditions, two companies – namely Innovatiview India and I-Net Secure Labs – filed writ petitions before the High Court, contending that the turnover requirement was arbitrary and was being enforced only in Tamil Nadu. Also, insisting on prior experience for surveillance at counting centres was unreasonable, as entities experienced in webcasting at polling booths would be equally competent to undertake such work, they argued.
The commission submitted that webcasting and camera deployment form an important mechanism for monitoring the electoral process and ensuring transparency, thereby enhancing public confidence in the conduct of elections. It added that such legal challenges, particularly on the eve of elections, would seriously disrupt the preparations.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that they found no shred of material to prove arbitrariness, perversity, mala fide, or bias that would warrant judicial interference. Also, the judges added, they were conscious of the Supreme Court ruling that the tender-floating authority is empowered to stipulate preconditions or qualifications to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to execute the work.
The conditions of the tender cannot be altered or modified to make them suitable to the petitioners, as the best person to frame the terms and conditions of the tender is the tender-making authority, which has the necessary technical and administrative expertise, the court said and dismissed the petitions.