The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the Bar Association at Indore Bench to issue guidelines advising the lawyers not to file affidavits verifying facts on behalf of their clients.

A Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed that advocates are not supposed to give affidavit in support of the facts stated in the application moved on behalf of a party.

The Court deprecated the practice and ordered the Registry not to accept such applications which are supported by affidavits of the advocates.

"Let a copy of this order be sent to the Bar Association to issue general guidelines to the lawyers not to give affidavit on behalf of the parties in any matter as they are not supposed to verify the facts of the case," the Court further directed on May 14.

The Court was hearing an application seeking suspension of sentence of a convict. The application, supported by an affidavit sworn by the counsel representing him, asserted that he was falsely implicated and had committed no offence.

Questioning how the lawyer can file the affidavit to support such claims, the Court said,

"These facts cannot be verified by an Advocate as he was not present at the time of incident. Hence, this practice of filing affidavit by the Advocates is deprecated.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.

Advocate Chandra Prakash Purohit appeared for the appellant.

Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargava appeared for the State.

[Read Order]

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, on Friday issued notice to FIITJEE Limited on a corporate insolvency plea filed by its former employee Vinod Kumar Agarwal, who has claimed unpaid dues of over ₹2.6 crore.

A Bench of NCLT comprising Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Subrata Kumar Dash (Technical Member) heard the matter and directed FIITJEE to file its response. The case has been posted for further hearing on July 10, 2025.

Agarwal, who held a senior position at FIITJEE, has approached the tribunal under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as an operational creditor.

According to him, the company failed to clear his dues from FY 2023-24 and 2024-25 despite repeated demands. He was thus constrained to file the plea. Though FIITJEE claimed Agarwal was a Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), he denied the same in the NCLT. The tribunal is now expected to analyse if there was a pre-existing dispute between FIITJEE and Agarwal in order to ascertain the maintainability of the plea.

FIITJEE, a pioneer in India’s competitive exam coaching space since its founding in 1992, is best known for preparing students for the IIT-JEE and other engineering entrance exams. For years, it commanded significant market share in offline test prep, operating through a network of centres across the country.

However, in recent years, FIITJEE has been grappling with a range of financial and operational challenges:

• Post-COVID Business Model Disruption: The pandemic significantly impacted its classroom-based coaching model. Although FIITJEE attempted to pivot online, it lagged behind newer, tech-first competitors like BYJU’S, Unacademy, and Vedantu, who rapidly scaled digital offerings.

• Decline in Market Share: Students increasingly opted for online, flexible, and often more affordable alternatives, leading to a decline in enrolments and revenues for traditional players like FIITJEE.

• Operational Costs and Staff Departures: Reports over the past few years suggest mounting operational expenses, coupled with employee exits and restructuring efforts, including closure or downsizing of some centers. Delayed salaries and unsettled dues have also reportedly been a source of discontent among former employees.

Sources close to development told Bar & Bench that FIITJEE is expected to face at least three more insolvency pleas over unpaid salaries.

Agarwal was represented by Advocate Praphull Chandan Jha

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to the death penalty for the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl for lack of evidence [Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra].

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta noted that the entire case was built on circumstantial evidence, requiring the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of facts leading to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused. However, the Court observed that the evidence presented was unreliable, inconsistent and marked by significant procedural lapses.

“In case of any breach in the chain of incriminating circumstances, the Court would be left with no option but to acquit the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt,” the Court said.

The case arose from the alleged rape and murder of a three-year-old girl in Thane, Maharashtra in September 2013. The girl went missing while playing outside her home, and her body was found two days later in a pond. The accused, a 25-year-old watchman, was arrested based on three pieces of circumstantial evidence - the girl and him were last seen together, an alleged extra-judicial confession and forensic analysis of soil samples.

The trial court convicted the appellant in 2019 for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 376(2)(i) (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). It sentenced the appellant to death, observing that the case fell into the ‘rarest of rare’ category.

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence in 2021. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging both the conviction and the death sentence.

The Supreme Court found serious flaws in each link of the prosecution's circumstantial chain. It noted that the last-seen-together evidence, which formed a critical part of the prosecution’s case, was unreliable and appeared to have been fabricated by the investigating officers. The Court pointed out that key witnesses did not come forward with their accounts until several days after the child went missing, despite police being present in the area throughout the search.

The Court also rejected the alleged extra-judicial confession, noting that the witness who claimed to have heard the confession made significant improvements in his testimony.

The forensic evidence, which included a report matching soil found on the accused’s shoes to mud near the pond where the body was recovered, was also found to be scientifically unsound and inconclusive. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to exclude other plausible sources for the soil, rendering this evidence unreliable.

The Court took strong exception to the investigative lapses that led to the wrongful conviction, emphasising that the prosecution had failed to meet the basic standards of proof required for a criminal conviction. It noted that the prosecution’s approach appeared to have been driven by a desire to secure a conviction at all costs, without regard for the fundamental principles of criminal justice.

“Thus, we are compelled to hold that flawed and tainted investigation has eventually led to the failure of the prosecution case involving the gruesome rape and murder of a child at the tender age of 3 years and 9 months only,” the Court said.

With this, the top court acquitted the man who spent 12 years in jail and ordered his immediate release.

The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, along with Advocates Fauzia Shakil, Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Shreya Rastogi, Pratiksha Basarkar, Kaushitaki Sharma and Hima Bhardwaj.

Advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Soumya Priyadarshinee, Vinayak Aren, Amlaan Kumar, Jatin Dhamija and Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj appeared for the State of Maharashtra.

[Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the High Courts to frame or amend existing rules for appointment of court managers, while expressing concern that they are currently working on a contractual basis.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran asked the High Courts to tweak the rules to suit their peculiar needs and submit them to state governments within three months.

The Court also directed that existing court managers be regularised, subject to their passing a suitability test. A similar direction had been passed in 2018 as well.

Though the Court today clarified that regularisation shall be from the beginning, it added that such court managers shall not be entitled to any arrears. It flagged that the court managers - a post introduced after 13th Finance Commission - were still working on a contractual basis.

"We are at pains to say that they are still working on contractual basis and some states have discontinued them for shortage of funds."

The posts of court managers were created to assist judges in  administrative duties in High Courts and District Courts.

Today, the top court said the court managers shall be Class-II gazetted officers.

"They shall be under Registrar General of High Court and in district court they shall be under registrar or superintendent of such district court," it clarified.

The judgment was passed today on an application in the  All India Judges Association case. In 2018, the top court had ordered that professionally qualified court managers, preferably with an MBA degree, must be appointed to render assistance in performing the court administration. 

"The said post of Court managers must be created in each judicial district for assisting Principal District and Sessions Judges. Such Court Managers would enable the District Judges to devote more time to their core work, that is, judicial functions. This, in turn, would enhance the efficiency of the District Judicial System. These court managers would also help in identifying the weaknesses in the court management systems and recommending workable steps under the supervision of their respective judges for rectifying the same," the Court had ordered.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar was Amicus Curiae in the case.

Advocate Siddharth R Gupta appeared for the National Association of Court Managers (an intervenor), along with advocates Prabhakar Mrigank (Advocate on Record), Uddaish Palya and Aman Agarwal.

Senior lawyers of the Supreme Court on Friday gathered in courtroom 1 to pay their respects to Justice Bela Trivedi on her last working day as a judge.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih who sat on the ceremonial bench with Justice Trivedi commended the judge for her work ethic and legal knowledge.

"I have seen her personally when her father was ailing. She used to go Ahmedabad in the weekends and come back and attend court in Monday morning," CJI Gavai said.

In an apparent reference to critics of Justice Trivedi's stern handling of cases, the CJI said that the presence of so many members of the Bar, including leaders of Bar bodies, shows the respect that she continues to garner in the legal community.

Addressing the ceremonial bench, Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who are often seen at loggerheads in court, agreed on one thing - Justice Trivedi never bowed to public opinion.

"Our Ladyship has never moulded the relief to suit popular sentiment. This needs courage of conviction and courage to displease people. We have lost many matters here and in Gujarat but the respect remains. Our respect and love for judge is not contingent upon the orders passed. In every court, some individuals feel that their word should be the last word but in your court it was always the last word of law," SG Mehta said.

"I endorse what the learned Solicitor General said. I do not think any judge of this Court bows down to popular sentiment and if they do, then it is totally unacceptable. Your Ladyship has drawn the lines and whenever you granted relief, you did it on the right side of justice," Sibal said.

Attorney General for India (AG) R Venkataramani pointed out that Justice Trivedi had also served on the Executive side as Law Secretary.

"That is a rare combination. Firmness is a part of an institutional premise," Venkataramani said.

"Wherever the hammer fell, it fell evenly," added Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra.

Those present in Court further acknowledged the importance of having more women on the Bench of the top court.

Sibal pointed out that Justice Trivedi was only the tenth woman judge in the Court's 75 year history.

"Like all women judges, you too have a tough mind with gentleness. More women judges will make this court very different", added AG Venkataramani.

The courtroom was also filled with women lawyers, many of whom addressed the ceremonial bench. Senior Advocate Rachana Srivastava lauded Justice Trivedi for being an inspiration.

"You stood by what you thought was correct. Though you have been strict but when we requested you did accede. Presence of so many ladies show that you are an inspiration for us. Please continue to inspire us," Srivastava said.

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand too highlighted the impact of having women on the Bench.

"The narrative that your ladyship has done for the Court, and for the ladies, in general ... this section appreciates the narrative change that your ladyship has done - from 'man to woman' to 'man with woman' - that we think, is looking forward," she observed.

"All of us are inspired by your hard work, your courage, your grit. The way I see it, there is no male or woman judge when you sit there. That showed when you held on to the first principles. Thank you for being there, for inspiring us and we all wish you a very, happy, healthy life ahead," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave said.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora lauded Justice Trivedi for standing up for her convictions and beliefs, observing that it takes a lot of courage to do so.

"There is nothing like a male judge or female judge in this Court. We do not come here to take advantage because we are women; we come as equals. You established that, that there is no distinction here, we come here for our merits, treated at par with all our colleagues," she added.

Senior Advocates Vibha Datta Makhija and V Mohana joined in thanking Justice Trivedi for her contributions.

"You have always conducted court without fear or favour," observed Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati added,

"I want to pay my salute to a very firm, fearless, honest judge of this court, who was very kind to me in my time of grief told me to stand up and keep working. I am so grateful, the nation is indebted to you."

Closing out the ceremonial bench proceedings, a visibly emotional Justice Trivedi said that she has always spoken through her judgments and with a view to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

"In these 30 years I have always spoken through my judgments and I have always pronounced the operative part in court. This will be my last working day. I have taken on many responsibilities.. I have always worked based on my inner conscience. I have been harsh but the paramount consideration always has been the institution and nothing else... I am grateful to have been a part of this journey and this institution," Justice Trivedi said.

[Watch Ceremonial Bench Farewell]

[Read Live Coverage]

President of India Droupadi Murmu in a rare development on Wednesday invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on various questions pertaining to the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

The reference has been made in the backdrop of the recent Supreme Court ruling that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The verdict also introduced the concept of ‘deemed consent’ to counter gubernatorial inaction when it comes to the legislative bills.

While the Central government could have sought a review of the contentious decision passed by a two-judge bench, the matter will now have to be heard by a Constitution Bench. 

It is for the first time that President Murmu has sought the Supreme Court's opinion on a matter. This marks the only instance during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government that the apex court has been consulted under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India.

Bar & Bench explains Article 143(1), the cases where it was last invoked and what the top court has opined about this unique law.

Article 143(1) states that the President of India can seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on a question of law or fact that is of public importance. The Court is required to conduct a hearing on the reference made by the President and report its opinion to her.

It is part of the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction, exclusively dedicated to the President of India.

More than a dozen references have been made by Presidents since the framing of the Constitution.

Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr S Radhakrishnan, VV Giri, N Sanjiva Reddy, Giani Zail Singh, R Venkataraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma, KR Narayanan, APJ Abdul Kalam, Prathiba Patil and now Droupadi Murmu are the Presidents who have invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution,

In 1951, India’s first President Rajendra Prasad made the first reference to the Supreme Court in relation to provisions of Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 and Part C of the States (Laws) Act of 1950. The questions on which the opinion was sought related to delegation of legislative powers to the executive.

In 1958, the Supreme Court answered a reference on certain provisions of Kerala Education Bill, 1957, particularly whether the provisions of the proposed law infringed upon the rights of minority institutions.

In 1961, the Supreme Court had to answer another interesting reference related to implementation of an agreement made by India and Pakistan over transfer of a portion of Indian territory (Berubari Union) to then East Pakistan.

In 1963, the Supreme Court answered a reference on the scope and interpretation of Article 289 of the Constitution, relating to the immunity of states from Union taxation. The reference pertained to the provisions of Sea Customs Act.

The Supreme Court in 1964 answered another reference in relation to a reprimand issued to a Gorakhpur resident Keshav Singh by the Speaker of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for having committed contempt of the legislature and a breach of privileges of a member of the House. The question pertained to the intervention made by Allahabad High Court against Singh’s detention. 

In 1974, the Supreme Court even answered a reference on the process of election of the President.

There have been references on validity of Special Courts Bill, 1978, which was enacted after the Emergency to prosecute political people accused of various offences during that period, the Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 and also the the appointment and transfer of judges (Second Judges Case).  

There was also a reference on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute before the Supreme Court in 1993. 

Between 2000 and 2025, there have been only five references – on the law governing assembly elections, Gujarat Gas Act, 2001, 2G spectrum allocation, Punjab Termination of Agreements Act and now, Governors' assent to bills.

The Supreme Court in 2012, in the reference pertaining to the 2G case, discussed in detail Article 143 of the Constitution of India. One of the pertinent objections in the case was that the reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution does not entail appellate or review jurisdiction. A similar question could arise in the Governor case.

“If the present Reference is entertained, it would pave the way for the Executive to circumvent or negate the effect of inconvenient judgments, like the decision in the 2G Case, which would not only set a dangerous and unhealthy precedent,” Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee had argued.

Dealing with the arguments in 2G case, the Supreme Court said that it is essentially a matter for the President to decide whether the questions in a reference meet the prerequisites of Article 143(1). It further opined that the top court is not bound to render advisory opinion in every reference and may refuse to do so “for strong, compelling and good reasons”. 

The Court on the basis of earlier references also summarised that a reference should not be vague, general and undefined. “When the question becomes unspecific and incomprehensible, the risk of returning the reference unanswered arises,” it further said.

On the question of maintainability of a reference that may be indirectly seeking a review of a judgment, the Court examined the answers given to the earlier references and said,

“It is demonstrable that while entertaining the reference under Article 143(1), this Court had analysed the principles enunciated in the earlier judgment and also made certain modifications. The said modifications may be stated as one of the mode or method of inclusion by way of modification without changing the ratio decidendi. For the purpose of validity of a reference, suffice it to say, dwelling upon an earlier judgment is permissible. That apart, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the scope of limited judicial review, in the Second Judges Case, which otherwise is quite restricted, was slightly expanded in the Court’s opinion to the Presidential reference."

It also noted that almost every reference has witnessed challenge to the maintainability but all have been answered, except the one on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. 

In conclusion, the Court stated it may refuse to address a reference if an authoritative ruling has already decided the questions raised by it.

“From the aforesaid analysis, it is quite vivid that this Court would respectfully decline to answer a reference if it is improper, inadvisable and undesirable; or the questions formulated have purely socio-economic or political reasons, which have no relation whatsoever with any of the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise are of no constitutional significance; or are incapable of being answered; or would not subserve any purpose; or there is authoritative pronouncement of this Court which has already decided the question referred.”

In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal reference in 1991, the top court opined that when it pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law on the judicial side, “it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is.”

Habib Al Mulla and Partners has announced the opening of its new office in New Delhi.

Siddhant Sharma will head the Delhi office. In an email, the firm confirmed to Bar & Bench that it has obtained a consultancy license to open an office in Delhi.

"The legal work, if it is international, will be conducted through our Dubai office. Any matters relating to India will be conducted with Indian law firms."

The new platform is designed to serve as a bridge in India, enabling Indian businesses and professionals to connect with the firm’s Dubai-based team for matters governed by UAE and international law. The India entity will advise companies and financial institutions on international transactions.

The expansion comes at a time of a growing bilateral engagement, marked by the recent visit of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and UAE Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, to India. His meetings with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted a shared vision for closer cooperation in key sectors such as technology, connectivity and economic integration.

Dr. Habib Al Mulla, Founder of Habib Al Mulla & Partners, commented,

“Our cross-border extension into India reflects our commitment to supporting clients wherever their business interests take them. By connecting India’s vibrant business landscape with the legal strengths of Dubai, we offer clients a trusted platform for international growth. We look forward to deepening our partnerships in India and delivering world-class solutions to new and existing clients.”

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.

The Central government has appointed a team of special public prosecutors (SPPs), headed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to conduct the trial in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case.

Pakistani-origin Canadian-American, Tahawwur Rana, is an accused in the case, and he was extradited to India from the United States last month.

He is presently in judicial custody till June 6.

Apart from Mehta, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju and senior advocates Dayan Krishnan and Narender Mann will be part of the prosecutorial team.

They will represent the National Investigation Agency (NIA) before the special courts at Delhi, the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India.

Notably, Rana was born in Pakistan in 1961 and served as a doctor in the Pakistani Army, before migrating to Canada in the 1990s and becoming a citizen in the early 2000s.

He is believed to be a close aide of Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley, who conducted reconnaissance missions for the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Headley is currently lodged in a US prison. He had testified that Rana provided both logistical and financial support for the Mumbai plot. 

Indian agencies have said that Rana has connections with Pakistan's intelligence service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Pakistani Army, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the main outfit behind the Mumbai terror attack. 

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday appointed a committee of experts to investigate the alleged discrepancies and irregularities in JEE (Mains) 2025 exam.

Justice Vikas Mahajan said the committee will probe the discrepancies in session I of the JEE (Mains) 2025 exam.

"Be that as it may, both the parties are ad idem that to find out the truth of the matter, it is imperative to refer the matter to the experts. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL)," the Court ordered.

The Court further directed the Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) to complete the probe expeditiously and furnish a report in a sealed cover by May 22.

Justice Mahajan said the direction is being issued because the results of JEE (Advanced) 2025 will be declared on June 2.

Two candidates have approached the High Court alleging that the final scorecard with respect to the first session of the exam has been manipulated.

Advocate Deepak Jain appeared for the petitioners and argued that there was a discrepancy in the scorecards downloaded by them and the composite scorecard declared by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

Apart from facing the same issue in the first session, one of the candidates also claimed a discrepancy in the session II results.

He said that the number of attempted questions was found to be incorrect.

Meanwhile, the NTA argued that there is no human interference in the exams and the whole process is done by the National Informatics Centre (NIC). 

"We have the audit log. There cannot be any human interference in the scorecard. NIC uploads scorecard and it has certified that there has been no manipulation in the scorecard and the response sheet," Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar told the Court.

After considering the case, the Court also allowed one of the candidates to register for the JEE (Advanced) exam on the basis of the percentile he has relied upon.

"Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, petitioner is permitted to register his application for JEE (Advanced). Respondent no.4/JEE (Advanced) is requested to process the said application," the Court stated.

It was clarified that the interim directions are subject to the outcome of this matter and no special equity is created.

Further, the candidate's result in JEE Advanced will not declared and was directed to be placed before the Court in sealed cover, the Court added.

The matter will be heard next on May 23.

Advocates Deepak Jain, Jaspreet Aulakh, Anoushka Singh, Dashampreet Kaur, Sajal Gupta and Aksh Raina appeared for the candidates.

Senior Advocate Rupesh Kumar with Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Pankhuri Srivastava, Alekshendra Sharma, Pragya Bhushan, Tarandeep Singh, Vilakshana Dayma and Aditya Kumar represented the NTA.

Senior Panel Counsel Neha Rastogi, with Advocates Animesh Ratogi and Rajat Dubey appeared for NIC.

Advocate Arjun Mitra appeared for JEE (Advanced), IIT Kanpur.

Government Pleader Aastha Gupta with Advocates Manish Kapoor, Kiran Bharti and Parul Mittal appeared for the Union of India.

[Read live coverage]

The Supreme Court recently upheld an Allahabad High Court decision quashing the award of a ₹37.92 crore cloud services contract to CloudThat Technologies, a registered Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE), on the ground that the bulk of the contract would be executed by Amazon Web Services (AWS), a non-MSME entity. [CloudThat v. ThoughtSol]

A Bench of Justices MM. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held,

“We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

The Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH), functioning under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, had floated a tender in March 2024 for cloud-based upgradation of its National Data Repository (NDR).

While Thoughtsol Infotech emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) after technical and financial evaluation, the contract was instead awarded to CloudThat Technologies by invoking the price-matching preference granted to MSMEs under the Public Procurement Policy for MSEs, 2012.

This decision was challenged before the Allahabad High Court by Thoughtsol, which argued that the award of the contract to CloudThat violated both the letter and spirit of the MSME policy, since 97% of the contract’s scope was to be undertaken by Amazon Web Services, CloudThat’s cloud service provider (CSP), which is not registered as an MSME.

On March 10, a Division Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Vipin Chandra Dixit ruled in favour of Thoughtsol. The Court held that CloudThat, while technically registered as an MSME, played a subordinate and facilitative role in the contract as a managed service provider (MSP), with AWS performing the dominant technical functions.

“Goods and services for the cloud contract are not rendered by the bidder in its capacity as MSP. It is merely playing a supporting role in providing cloud services on behalf of AWS,” the High Court held.

The Court noted that under the contract, AWS would be responsible for critical services such as computing, data storage, analytics, software licensing and ongoing support. These accounted for 97% of the total financial outlay. CloudThat, on the other hand, would only handle incidental services such as migration support and helpdesk functions, valued at less than 3%.

It further noted that CloudThat did not originate or provide the core cloud technology, software, or infrastructure; it merely facilitated AWS’s services under a back-to-back support arrangement.

The High Court concluded that extending MSME preference to such a bidder would defeat the objective of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which envisages price preference only for MSEs that produce the goods or render the services being procured.

Referring to government memoranda and FAQs clarifying the MSME policy, the High Court emphasised that traders, intermediaries, or entities acting on behalf of foreign companies were expressly excluded from receiving MSME benefits.

“Extending the benefit of MSE policy in award of cloud contract in favour of third respondent would thus run counter to the policy objectives and provisions of MSE regime,” the Court ruled.

The Court directed DGH to re-evaluate the tender process and award the contract in accordance with law, effectively requiring it to reconsider Thoughtsol’s bid.

CloudThat was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu with Advocates Ajith Wiliiyam S and Karunakaran.

ThoughtSol was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and J Sai Deepak with a team from King Stubb & Kasiva comprising Advocates Sukrit R Kapoor, Aayushya Aankul, Navnit Kumar. Advocates Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava and Saurabh Pandey also represented ThoughtSol.

The government organisation was represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, with Advocates Shravan Yammanur and Mangesh Krishna .

[Read order]