Smartphones aren't tablets, says Supreme Court. Tender authority knows best.

When a Tablet is Not a Smartphone: The Supreme Court's Tender Interpretation Lesson

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), the government body running a chain of residential schools, needed 68,940 tablets for its students. It floated a tender on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal. M/s Resoursys Telecom bid, backed by its original equipment manufacturer (OEM), Lava International. But NVS rejected Resoursys's technical bid. The reason? Resoursys's OEM had past experience supplying smartphones, not tablets. The tender required bidders to show past performance of supplying "same or similar Category Products" worth 60% of the bid quantity. NVS held that a smartphone is not the same or similar category product as a tablet. Resoursys challenged this in the Delhi High Court, which agreed with the bidder. The Supreme Court of India, however, reversed the High Court, delivering a sharp reminder about the limits of judicial review in tender matters. The stakes were high: a government contract, the principle of deference to the tender-issuing authority, and the very meaning of "similar category products" in public procurement.

The Tender That Sparked a Fight

On 12 February 2021, NVS issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on the GeM portal. The eligibility condition was clear: bidders needed past performance of supplying "same or similar Category Products" worth at least 60% of the bid quantity. Resoursys Telecom submitted its bid, with Lava International as its OEM. Lava's past supplies were of smartphones. NVS's technical evaluation committee rejected Resoursys's bid on 25 June 2021, concluding that smartphones and tablets are not "same or similar category products."

Resoursys moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, in its judgment dated 27 September 2021, allowed the writ petition. It held that smartphones fall within the expression "similar Category Products" as tablets. The court directed NVS to reprocess Resoursys's technical bid. NVS and the successful bidder, M/s Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd., appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the High Court Got Wrong

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (with Justice Vikram Nath concurring), did not mince words. The core problem, the Court held, was that the High Court substituted its own interpretation of the tender condition for that of the tender-issuing authority. This, the Court said, was impermissible.

The Bench observed that the author of a tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. Courts must defer to this interpretation unless it is shown to be mala fide, perverse, irrational, or procedurally improper. Even if the interpretation is not acceptable to the constitutional court, that alone is insufficient ground for interference. The Court cited its own decision in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818, which laid down this very principle.

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had relied on Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corp. Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 1, but distinguished it. In Reliance Energy, the issue was undefined accounting norms that could lead to discriminatory treatment. Here, the issue was product categorization, not vagueness. The tender condition was clear: it required past supply of "same or similar Category Products." NVS's interpretation that smartphones and tablets are different categories was a plausible one, and the High Court had no business substituting its own view.

The Witness Rule the Supreme Court Applied

The Supreme Court applied a well-settled principle: the court does not sit as a court of appeal over the tender inviting authority's technical assessment. Technical evaluation or comparison of products by courts in judicial review is impermissible. This principle was reaffirmed in Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J K Roadways (2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035), a three-judge bench decision that the Supreme Court followed. The Court also cited Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 272 and Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133) to reinforce the point.

The Court further clarified that the contra proferentem rule, which applies to insurance policies and ambiguous clauses, cannot be applied to eligibility conditions in a notice inviting tender. Where two tenderers suggest two different interpretations, the tender author's interpretation prevails, subject only to checks of illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a powerful tool to resist High Court interference in tender disputes. The message is clear: unless the tender authority's interpretation is patently perverse or mala fide, the court must defer. For CFOs and founders bidding on government contracts, the lesson is equally stark: read the tender conditions carefully. If the tender requires past experience of supplying "tablets," don't assume that "smartphones" will qualify, even if they seem similar. The tender-issuing authority's interpretation will likely prevail.

THE PLAY: When challenging a tender rejection, do not ask the court to substitute its own interpretation of the tender condition. Instead, focus on proving mala fides, perversity, or procedural impropriety in the authority's decision-making process.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Delhi High Court's order, and restored NVS's rejection of Resoursys's bid. The judgment is a definitive restatement of the law: the tender-issuing authority is the master of its own conditions, and courts will not second-guess its technical evaluations unless they are demonstrably arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. For anyone involved in public procurement, the rule is simple: the author of the tender knows best.