A single questionable contract is all it takes to shake the foundations of fairness in public administration. The Supreme Court made that clear while directing a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into allegations surrounding the allotment of government work in Arunachal Pradesh. ⚖️
The case centred on claims that public contracts were repeatedly steered towards relatives and close associates of the state’s Chief Minister, raising concerns about conflict of interest and departure from open tendering norms. The Court underscored that public procurement must adhere to transparency and competition, calling these safeguards essential to protect public interest. 📜
Rejecting the State’s attempt to downplay the issue by citing small percentages of allegedly irregular allotments, the Bench delivered a sharp message: constitutional violations cannot be diluted by arithmetic. Even a lone instance of a contract awarded through a tainted process, the Court observed, undermines equality, rule of law, and public confidence. 📉
The State had argued that only a fraction of tenders—0.32% in one department and even less in others—were questioned. But the Court dismissed this defence, stating that public trust cannot be measured statistically. A minimal percentage cannot legitimise nepotism, nor can it erase the illegality of bypassing fair competition. 🚫
The petitions, filed by civil groups, alleged systemic irregularities in the award and execution of contracts, including non-transparent allocations and deviations from procurement rules. The Court also examined an audit report that documented multiple works executed without inviting tenders and without recorded reasons for such decisions. These findings, the Court said, carried evidentiary value.
It further stressed that any departure from competitive bidding must be backed by recorded, rational reasons capable of objective scrutiny. In the absence of such records, the Court indicated that adverse inferences may be drawn, particularly when the State—custodian of public documents—fails to produce essential materials. 📂
Highlighting accountability, the judgment noted that public expenditure must remain traceable. Missing vouchers, absent evaluation records, and unexplained non-tendered contracts were treated as serious gaps, not harmless lapses.
With these observations, the Court ordered a preliminary probe, signalling that even isolated irregularities in public contracting can trigger constitutional scrutiny. The ruling reinforces a simple but firm principle: fairness in government dealings is not optional, and even a single deviation can cross the constitutional line. ⚖️
