In its judgment delivered on July 15, the Delhi High Court ordered the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to issue new requests for proposals within one month, noting that the technical evaluation process lacked both transparency and consistency. However, the court permitted the current service provider, VFS Global, to continue operations until a new tender is finalized and fresh contracts are awarded.
As per the MEA’s website, the contracts for Australia, the UAE, and Kuwait expired on June 30, while the contract for Singapore is set to expire on September 30.
VFS Global halted the acceptance of new passport, visa, and consular applications in Australia starting July 1, following directives from the High Commission of India in Canberra. The company refrained from commenting on the situation, citing ongoing litigation.
The Central Government filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision at the Supreme Court on Friday. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made an urgent request before a bench that included Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, which agreed to take up the case on July 20.
During the hearing, Mehta informed the court that, although the High Court had allowed existing service providers to continue temporarily, services had ceased following the expiration of the contracts, and the providers were unwilling to operate without a valid agreement. He indicated that passport and visa services across three nations had essentially stopped.
No changes in services have been announced yet
As of Friday, there has been no communication from the MEA, the High Commission of India in Canberra, or VFS Global regarding the resumption of regular passport, visa, or Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) services in Australia.
The filing of the appeal does not itself restore services, and any resumption would hinge on further directives from the Supreme Court or operational decisions taken by the MEA, the relevant Indian missions, and the service provider.
The disruption impacts Indian citizens seeking passport renewals, OCI cards, and other consular services, as well as foreign nationals applying for Indian visas. Eligible travelers may still utilize India’s e-Visa facility where applicable, although it does not encompass all visa categories or replace passport and OCI services. The High Commission continues to advise applicants needing emergency visas to directly contact its consular section.
Overview of the dispute
This case arises from petitions filed by E Trav Tech Ltd. and Verasys Ltd., which contested the tender evaluation process after failing to achieve the minimum qualifying score in the technical bid phase. As they did not qualify on technical grounds, their financial proposals were not considered.
The petitioners maintained that points were deducted without sufficient justification, that similar proposals received different scores across various countries, and that undisclosed benchmarks were employed during the evaluation.
The Union government defended the evaluation process, asserting that expert committees assessed the bids based on the unique requirements of individual Indian missions and contended that the courts should not interfere with technical evaluations.
However, the Delhi High Court ruled that the evaluation process revealed unexplained inconsistencies and lacked adequate transparency. It determined that these deficiencies rendered the technical evaluation arbitrary, nullifying the contract awards and instructing the MEA to initiate a new tender process.
The judgment also noted E Trav’s assertion that it proposed a service fee of AUD 38 for Canberra, while the successful bidder quoted AUD 114. The court did not direct the contract to be awarded to E Trav but referenced the price discrepancy while considering the broader challenge to the procurement process.
The Supreme Court is set to examine the Centre’s appeal on July 20.
Also Read: US to change visa regulations for foreign students, journalists
