Tender Condition For In-State E-Waste Recycling Facility for Disposal of EVMs and VVPATs Upheld

The Hon’ble Karnataka high Court, in Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited v. Bharat Electronics Limited & Anr. (W.P. No. 935 of 2026, order dated April 29, 2026), upheld a tender condition requiring participating e-waste recycling companies to posses recycling facilities within the State of Karnataka for disposal of decommissioned Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that such a condition could not be termed arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly considering the sensitive nature of the electoral equipment involved and the environmental compliance obligations attached to their disposal.

The dispute arose from a tender notification issued in December 2025 by MSTC Limited on behalf of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), a public sector undertaking engaged in manufacturing EVMs and related electoral equipment. The petitioner, a Maharashtra- based e-waste recycling company, challenged Clause II 3.5 of the tender conditions, which effectively restricted participation to entities possessing recycling facilities within Karnataka. The petitioner contended that the impugned condition was arbitrary, exclusionary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further argued that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines permitted inter-state transportation of e-waste and therefore the insistence on in-state facilities lacked any rational basis.

Per contra, BEL defended the impugned tender condition by relying upon communications and recommendations issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Contral Board (KSPCB). it was submitted that KSPCB had cautioned BEL regarding the environmental and regulatory risks associated with permitting disposal of EVMs and VVPATs outside the State without appropriate approvals and supervision. BEL further contended that disposal of such equipment involved handling of highly sensitive electronic components and therefore required strict monitoring and regulatory oversight.

Before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the principal issue for consideration was whether tender condition mandating an in-state recycling facility amounted to an arbitrary and discriminatory restriction on participation in the tender process.

Upon examining the record, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court observed that the disposal of EVMs and VVPATs could not be treated as an ordinary scrap disposal exercise. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court noted that the process involved handling sensitive electoral equipment, compliance with environmental safeguards, and prevention of unauthorized reuse or compromise of components. In this background, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that the insistence on localized recycling facilities had a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely ensuring safe, secure, and environmentally compliant disposal.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court further observed that the statutory authority entrusted with environmental protection, namely KSPCB, had specifically recommended localized recycling in order to ensure continuous monitoring, ease of inspection, and immediate regulatory intervention in case of violations. Accordingly, the impugned condition was held to be a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance rather than a standalone commercial restriction.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court also attached significance to the status of BEL as a premier public sector undertaking engaged in manufacturing highly sensitive electoral instruments. It observed that any lapse or non-compliance in disposal of such electronic waste could expose BEL to serious civil consequences and adversely affect its institutional credibility and future manufacturing responsibilities. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that a certain degree of latitude must be accorded to BEL in framing tender conditions aligned with environmental guidelines and regulatory supervision.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that prior participation in earlier tenders created an entitlement to participate in the present tender, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court reiterated that participation in a tender is not a fundamental right but a conditional privilege subject to eligibility criteria prescribed by the procuring entity. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court further observed that environmental compliance and regulatory enforceability stand on a higher pedestal than unrestricted competitiveness in matters involving hazardous electronic waste.

Accordingly, finding no arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity in the impugned tender condition, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the tender framework.