- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
A COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF JUDICIAL EVOLUTION, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS, AND CONTEMPORARY TRENDS
Blacklisting by the state and its instrumentalities has long been recognized as an administrative measure carrying severe civil consequences. Over decades, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ("Court") has progressively subjected this executive power to the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principle of audi alteram partem. The jurisprudence has evolved from recognizing a foundational right to fair treatment in public contracts, to demanding procedural safeguards when the harsh penalty of blacklisting is contemplated, and to insisting upon clear, express notice of proposed action to afford parties an opportunity for representation.
In the decision of "Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal," 1 the Court held that while the state may select its contracting parties, it must do so fairly and without arbitrariness. Blacklisting, by excluding a person from the privilege of dealing with the State, impacts equality of opportunity in public contracts. The Court observed that blacklisting creates a barrier in dealings with the Government and thus directed observance of fair play fundamentals, including an opportunity to represent, before a person or entity is being blacklisted.
The Court in "Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors."2 set aside a blacklisting order issued without notice. The Court reiterated that even in absence of specific procedural rules, it is an implied principle of the rule of law that orders with civil consequences must adhere to natural justice. Given that blacklisting a person or entity engaged in business inevitably affects their future prospects, the affected party must receive a notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The jurisprudence shifted from 'whether' to 'how' natural justice applies in blacklisting cases. In "Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.,"3 the Court clarified the mandatory content of a show cause notice when blacklisting is contemplated. Firstly, it held that the materials and grounds necessitating blacklisting must be clearly stated. Secondly, the precise penal action proposed must be expressly mentioned or at least clearly inferable from the show cause notice. The decision emphasized that blacklisting is the harshest civil measure, aptly describing it as 'civil death', and thus the show cause notice must alert the recipient to the exact consequence proposed, otherwise, the ultimate order would transgress the notice's bounds and be vitiated. This judgment also clarified that while a prior opportunity through a proper show cause notice is indispensable, an oral hearing is not per se mandatory if an adequate opportunity to respond in writing is provided.
In "UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.,"4 the Court quashed a blacklisting order that followed a show cause notice. Although the notice described alleged contractual breaches, it was silent on the proposed blacklisting action. Reaffirming Gorkha, the Court held that for a notice to constitute a valid foundation for blacklisting, it must clearly state, or allow for safe inference, that blacklisting is intended. The mere presence of a clause in bid documents referring to blacklisting as an eligibility bar does not remedy a notice that fails to specifically mention the contemplated penalty. The Court also took judicial notice of the "domino effect" of blacklisting, where a sanction by one authority triggers terminations or exclusions by other authorities, thereby magnifying prejudice and confirming the need for strict adherence to procedural fairness.
The Court, in the most recent decision of "Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr.,"5 clarified the legal standards governing blacklisting in public contracts. It held that while authorities possess the inherent power to blacklist contractors for breaches, such punitive action must be reserved for grave or deviant conduct, not for mere contractual defaults, especially where circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to non-performance. The Court emphasized that blacklisting is a drastic measure with severe commercial consequences, requiring authorities to exercise this power judiciously and ensure show cause notices are not issued as a mere formality but are based on substantial grounds.
The Court has consistently affirmed that the state's authority to blacklist is a necessary component of its executive power to contract. However, every exercise of this authority is constitutionally bounded and it must pursue a legitimate purpose, be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary, and comply with minimum procedural safeguards of natural justice. The 'no prejudice' argument holds little weight here because, as the Court in Gorkha and UMC emphasized, the inherent harshness of blacklisting and its reputational and commercial ramifications constitute prejudice. The Court's remedial approach has been measured, often setting aside blacklisting orders due to improper notice while permitting the authority to recommence proceedings de novo in accordance with the law, thereby respecting fairness to the contractor.
Recently, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in "Innovatiview India Limited v. Directorate of Technical Education & Ors.,"6 has allowed a Writ Petition on the first date of hearing, quashing a five-year ban imposed by the Directorate of Technical Education, Tamil Nadu, on Innovatiview India Limited from participating in future tenders. The ban was imposed after contract completion and recovery of a contractual penalty, without issuing any show cause notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Hon'ble Madras High Court held such action arbitrary and a clear violation of natural justice principles, emphasizing that punitive measures like blacklisting or debarment require strict adherence to due process, including prior notice and an opportunity for representation. It further noted that the contract had been fully settled, including the refund of the security deposit, and that the imposition of a ban post-settlement, without procedural safeguards, could not be sustained.
These recent administrative implications and judicial trends demonstrate a strict insistence on transparency and clarity at the notice stage, a reasoned selection of penalty calibrated to the gravity of the breach, and sensitivity to collateral consequences across the public procurement ecosystem. Authorities must demonstrate careful consideration not only of culpability but also of whether blacklisting is 'warranted' under the circumstances, and if so, for what period. The Court's blacklisting jurisprudence is characterized by continuity of principle and increasing procedural precision. The power to blacklist remains intact, but its exercise is no longer a matter of administrative expediency, rather, it is a constitutional function that must be undertaken with candour, clarity, due caution and care.
The authors have done significant work in protecting client's interest against blacklisting, or a potential attempt, by various government agencies across India, and have also managed to secure immediate injunction orders against such government agencies in this regard. Please watch this space for more as we keep tracking this particular area of practice ...
Footnotes
1 (1975) 1 SCC 70
2 (1989) 1 SCC 229
3 (2014) 9 SCC 105
4 (2021) 2 SCC 551
5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 343
6 WP No. 34586 of 2025
Originally published on 07 November, 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
