'High Court Should Avoid Sweeping Observations': Supreme Court Expunges Delhi HC Remarks That Indian Bidders Are Discriminated

The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them, the Supreme Court observed while expunging some remarks made in Delhi High Court judgment on "Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta)".

Bharat Fritz Werner Limited had approached the Delhi High Court challenging a Letter of Acceptance issued by the Union of India in favour of another company in respect of the award of tender. Taking note of in  the fact that substantial time has elapsed since the award of the tender, the High Court disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty in favour of the writ petitioner to raise all its pleas and claim the reliefs available to him at this stage in an appropriate civil proceedings.

The High court, however, also made the following observation in the judgment against which the Centre approached the Apex Court:

 "..We also permit the petitioner to make a representation addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India highlighting the aspects with regard to wrongful evaluation of the bids and discrimination meted out to some of the bidders. In case such a representation is made, we request the PMO to ensure that the same receives the attention of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. We are inclined to grant this liberty to the petitioner in the light of the fact that the petitioner is an Indian manufacturer and we had earlier found merit in the claim of the petitioner in Macpower CNC Machines Limited v. Union of India [W.P. No. 3942/2020] that Indian bidders are being discriminated against, even though the tender conditions itself stipulated that Indian manufacturers would be given preference. Keeping in view the fact that the Government of India is laying emphasis on "Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta), the grievances of the petitioner appear to be correct and, in our view, require serious consideration at the highest level."

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that the High Court was not deciding a Public Interest Litigation and even did not decide the writ petition on merits. On the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against, the court said.

"In such circumstances, such general observations should have been avoided by the High Court and the High Court ought to have restricted itself to the controversy between the parties before it. Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against. We advise the High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them", the court observed while partly allowing the appeal by expunging the above remarks from the High Court order. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment