In its decision on July 15, the Delhi High Court mandated the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to initiate fresh requests for proposals within one month, citing a lack of transparency and consistency in the technical evaluation process. However, the court permitted the current service provider, VFS Global, to continue its operations until a new tender process is completed and new contracts are awarded.
As per the MEA’s website, contracts for Australia, the UAE, and Kuwait expired on June 30, while Singapore’s contract 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 Centre filed a challenge to the High Court’s ruling with 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 review the case on July 20.
During this mention, Mehta argued that although the High Court allowed existing service providers to continue temporarily, services effectively ceased on July 1 after the expiration of contracts, as providers were reluctant to operate without valid agreements. He stated that passport and visa services in three countries had essentially come to a standstill.
No updates on services yet
As of Friday, there have been no announcements from the MEA, the High Commission of India in Canberra, or VFS Global regarding the reinstatement of standard passport, visa, or Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) services in Australia.
The filing of the appeal alone does not reinstate services. Any resumption would hinge on further directives from the Supreme Court or operational decisions made by the MEA, relevant Indian missions, and the service provider.
This disruption impacts Indian citizens needing passport renewals, OCI cards, and other consular services, as well as foreign nationals applying for Indian visas. Eligible travelers may continue to utilize India’s e-Visa facility where applicable, although it does not encompass all visa categories nor serve as a substitute for passport and OCI services. The High Commission continues to recommend that applicants in need of emergency visas reach out directly to its consular section.
Overview of the dispute
The issue originates from petitions filed by E Trav Tech Ltd. and Verasys Ltd., which contested the tender evaluation process after not securing the minimum qualifying score in the technical bid stage. As they did not meet the technical qualifications, their financial proposals were not considered.
The petitioners contended that scores were deducted without sufficient justification, similar proposals received varying scores across different countries, and undisclosed benchmarks were employed during evaluation.
The Union government defended the evaluation process, asserting that expert committees assessed the bids according to the specific requirements of each Indian mission, and argued that the courts should not interfere with technical evaluations.
However, the Delhi High Court found that the evaluation process exhibited unexplained inconsistencies and lacked sufficient transparency. It declared that these deficiencies rendered the technical evaluation arbitrary and nullified the contract awards, instructing the MEA to undertake a fresh tender process.
The judgment also noted E Trav’s claim that it proposed a service fee of AUD 38 for Canberra, whereas the successful bidder offered AUD 114. While the court did not instruct that the contract be awarded to E Trav, it referenced the price disparity when considering the broader challenge to the procurement process.
The Supreme Court is set to address the Centre’s appeal on July 20.
Also Read: US to change visa regulations for foreign students, journalists
