The Indian government has moved the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court ruling that cancelled the tender process for outsourced passport, visa and consular services in Australia and three other countries, but the legal challenge has delivered no immediate relief for Australians and Indian Australians unable to lodge routine applications.
The Union government challenged the July 15 decision after the Delhi High Court found that the technical evaluation of bids for Consular, Passport and Visa services in Canberra, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Singapore was affected by arbitrariness, irrationality and a lack of transparency.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter on Friday before a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The court agreed to list the case on Monday, July 20.
However, the appeal does not answer the urgent question facing thousands of applicants in Australia: when will they again be able to submit Indian passport renewals, visa applications, OCI requests and other routine consular documents?
VFS Global’s official Australian service notice continues to state that Consular, Passport and Visa services have been temporarily unavailable since July 1 and will remain suspended until further notice.
The appeal to the Supreme Court does not automatically reopen VFS centres, reactivate appointments or establish an alternative application channel.
Under Indian civil procedure, merely filing an appeal does not itself stay the order being challenged unless the appellate court grants specific interim relief.
Even a Supreme Court stay affecting the tender dispute may not, on its own, resolve the operational breakdown in Australia. A clear direction from the Ministry of External Affairs, the High Commission of India or the existing service provider would still be required to tell applicants where and when routine applications can be lodged.
The Delhi High Court had attempted to prevent disruption by allowing existing providers to continue operating until a fresh tender process was completed.
The order directed the Ministry of External Affairs to issue new requests for proposals within one month and complete the procurement exercise as quickly as possible. It also permitted existing service providers to continue temporarily so that members of the public would not be inconvenienced.
But permission to continue has not translated into resumed services in Australia.
There has been no public announcement confirming the reopening of VFS application centres, restoration of appointments or acceptance of postal applications. Applicants remain directed to a suspension notice rather than a functioning service pathway.
That gap between the court’s intention and the position on the ground means the latest legal move offers no practical reprieve to an Indian citizen in Australia whose passport is expiring, a family seeking an OCI card, or an Australian needing a regular visa for travel to India.
The disruption is particularly serious for Indian citizens living in Australia because an expired or near-expiry passport can affect international travel, visa status administration, identity checks and other official processes.
For Australians planning travel to India, the impact depends on the type of visa required. Eligible travellers may still be able to use India’s online e-Visa system, which continues to list Australia within its fee schedule, but that does not replace all regular visa categories or help people requiring passport, OCI and other document services.
Emergency visa arrangements are separately listed by the High Commission, which advises applicants to contact its consular section and allow at least one day for processing. Emergency channels, however, are not a substitute for a nationwide routine service covering the much larger volume of ordinary applications.
The tender dispute began after E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited were eliminated at the technical-bid stage for failing to achieve the required minimum score of 70 per cent.
E Trav received 62.2 marks for the Australian proposal, while Verasys received 61.25. Because neither was qualified technically, their financial bids were not considered in the final selection.
The challengers argued that marks had been deducted without explanations, that identical or materially similar proposals received different scores in different countries, and that undisclosed comparative standards had been applied.
The Delhi High Court found several examples of inconsistent or unexplained assessments.
It said the evaluation included hidden benchmarks, deductions under apparently objective criteria without recorded reasons, inconsistent marking between different missions and failures to explain why proposals had been considered deficient.
The court stressed that it was not substituting its own opinion for that of technical experts. Instead, it examined whether the decision-making process met constitutional requirements of fairness, transparency and equality.
It concluded that the technical evaluations could not be sustained under Article 14 of India’s Constitution and nullified the resulting contract awards.
The financial difference in the Australian tender also attracted attention.
Court records show E Trav said it had offered a service fee of AUD$38 for Canberra, compared with the successful bid of AUD$114. The court did not order the contract to be awarded to E Trav, but considered the price difference relevant to the wider public-interest concerns arising from an allegedly defective evaluation.
The Indian government had defended the assessment process, arguing that independent expert committees evaluated the bids according to each mission’s conditions and that the unsuccessful companies were attempting to reopen matters after failing to qualify.
The government is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn or suspend the High Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court hearing may determine whether the fresh tender requirement proceeds, whether the earlier contract award can be restored, or whether temporary arrangements are put in place while the litigation continues.
For applicants in Australia, however, the key issue is not which company ultimately wins the contract. It is whether any provider is authorised, equipped and instructed to accept applications now.
The High Court’s judgment was concerned with procurement fairness. The Supreme Court appeal is concerned with whether that judgment should stand. Neither development has yet produced a working counter, an available appointment or a confirmed postal channel for the public.
The Ministry of External Affairs and the High Commission of India now face growing pressure to separate the immediate service crisis from the longer-running commercial litigation.
A temporary arrangement could include extending the incumbent service, authorising direct submissions through Indian missions, creating a limited postal system, increasing emergency capacity or appointing an interim provider until the courts and tender process conclude.
Without such action, applicants risk remaining trapped between a suspended service, a cancelled tender, a fresh tender order and a Supreme Court challenge.
The next court hearing may provide legal clarity, but Australians and Indian Australians need something more immediate: a clear answer about where they can lodge their documents and when full services will resume.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
