Judiciary – Delhi High Court Upholds Nutrition Scheme Selection Process Decision
Judiciary – The Delhi High Court has supported the selection process followed by the Government of NCT of Delhi in implementing a major nutrition programme, reinforcing the principle that courts should intervene in administrative matters only in exceptional circumstances.
Court backs administrative discretion in tender decisions
The Delhi High Court has dismissed multiple petitions filed by non-governmental organisations that were not included in the final selection list issued on February 20, 2023. The list was prepared by the Department of Women and Child Development for the supply and distribution of supplementary nutrition under the Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 initiative.
A bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioners could not establish any legal flaws or procedural lapses in the selection process. The court underlined that its role in such matters is limited to reviewing how decisions are made, rather than reassessing the outcomes themselves.
Limited scope of judicial review emphasised
Referring to established legal principles, including those from the landmark Tata Cellular v. Union of India case, the bench reiterated that courts are not meant to act as appellate bodies over administrative authorities. Instead, judicial scrutiny is confined to identifying clear instances of arbitrariness, illegality, or bad faith.
The judges made it clear that expert bodies entrusted with evaluating tenders are better equipped to make such decisions, and their conclusions should not be substituted with judicial opinion unless serious irregularities are proven.
Presentation stage deemed valid evaluation method
One of the main objections raised by the petitioners was the inclusion of a presentation round, which accounted for 30 marks, in addition to the technical evaluation worth 70 marks. The NGOs argued that this stage was not outlined in the original Expression of Interest and was introduced unfairly.
The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that large-scale welfare schemes require a comprehensive assessment beyond paperwork. It noted that presentations provide valuable insight into an organisation’s operational readiness, infrastructure, and ability to execute projects effectively.
The bench observed that the scoring system, including the presentation component, was applied consistently across all participants and formed part of a unified evaluation framework.
Qualification does not guarantee selection
The court further clarified that clearing the technical evaluation stage does not grant any organisation an automatic right to selection. The process remains competitive, and final outcomes depend on overall performance across all evaluation stages.
Addressing claims that certain organisations were favoured or awarded multiple projects despite having less experience, the court found no credible evidence to support allegations of bias or mala fide intent. It stressed that broad accusations without solid proof cannot justify judicial interference.
Transparency concerns addressed by the court
On the issue of non-disclosure of presentation scores, the bench held that transparency requirements depend on the conditions specified in the tender. Since there was no obligation to disclose interim scores in this case, the absence of such disclosure did not invalidate the process.
The court also dismissed the argument that the selection list was released beyond the stipulated 120-day validity period. It noted that such timelines are generally advisory unless explicitly stated as mandatory.
Welfare scheme continuity highlighted
Importantly, the court pointed out that overturning the selection at this stage would disrupt a significant public welfare programme aimed at delivering nutrition through Anganwadi centres. It cautioned against unnecessary judicial intervention that could hinder essential services.
The bench concluded that no valid grounds were presented under Article 226 of the Constitution to warrant interference. As a result, all petitions were dismissed, and the selection process was upheld.