Allegations of “Rigged” Tenders Spark Legal Battle Against Karnataka’s Minority Welfare Department
Bengaluru– A brewing scandal over the procurement of educational services has landed the Karnataka Minority Welfare Department in the crosshairs of a legal challenge. A formal legal notice, issued on April 24, 2026, alleges deep-seated irregularities and “restrictive” practices in how the state handles multi-million rupee coaching tenders for minority students.
S.A.H. Razvi, a senior advocate with Prime Law Associates, has moved against the Directorate of Minorities, accusing the body of violating the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act. The notice, served under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, demands an immediate freeze on all active tenders for NEET, K-CET, and Civil Services coaching until a performance audit and independent inquiry are conducted.
A “Closed Ecosystem” for Favored Bidders
At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that the Directorate has carefully “engineered” tender criteria to ensure that only a handful of previous contract holders can qualify.
One glaring example cited in the notice is a requirement for bidders to own an Android application on the Google Play Store for at least three years, with marks awarded based on download counts. Razvi argues this has “no rational nexus” to the quality of actual offline coaching.
“This criterion serves exclusively to favor previous contract holders who were directed to create such applications as a condition of their earlier contracts,” the notice states.
Furthermore, the department reportedly requires bidders to show prior experience in supplying hardware like tablets and computers to government departments. By mixing the procurement of goods with the procurement of services, the legal notice claims the department is creating a “closed, self-perpetuating procurement ecosystem” that effectively locks out new, eligible competitors.
Lack of Oversight and Transparency
The legal challenge also points to a systematic breakdown of the digital safeguards meant to prevent corruption. Under Section 7 of the KTPP Act, all procurement data—from evaluation reports to contract execution—must be hosted on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal (KPPP).
According to the notice, the Directorate has bypassed these rules by:
Conducting “Off-Portal” Evaluations: Study materials are allegedly evaluated outside the electronic system, making the process non-auditable and prone to physical substitution.
Failing to Publish Results: Comparative analyses and reasons for awarding contracts are not being shared publicly as required by law.
Compromised Scrutiny: The notice alleges that the Tender Scrutiny Committee lacks the mandatory separation from the authorities who invite and accept the tenders, rendering the process void.
Demands for Accountability
The fallout from these alleged procedural lapses isn’t just administrative; it’s educational. The notice highlights “shockingly poor performance” from previous winners, suggesting that many entities failed to meet student achievement goals but were never held accountable.
“There are several indications that most of the entities have failed to the performance criteria and are liable to be debarred,” Razvi notes.
The demand is clear: a total overhaul. The notice calls for the Principal Accountant General of Karnataka to step in and conduct a performance audit of all coaching contracts awarded over the last five years. It also demands that the department verify the authenticity of faculty employment records and student achievement claims, which the notice alleges are often “fabricated or inflated”.
If the Directorate fails to suspend the current tenders and revise its criteria, the matter is headed for the bench. Razvi has signaled his intent to approach the Hon’ble High Court for a court-monitored inquiry to fix responsibility for what he describes as a “gross violation” of public trust.
For now, the future of coaching programs for thousands of minority students in Karnataka remains in a state of legal limbo.
Questions for the Minister for Minority Affairs
On Restrictive Criteria: How does the Ministry justify a mandatory requirement for an Android application with a three-year history and high download counts for a contract primarily involving offline coaching? Is this specific criterion intentionally designed to exclude new, qualified educational institutions in favor of existing contractors?
On Performance and Audits: The legal notice alleges “shockingly poor performance” from previous contract winners. Will the Ministry immediately release the performance audit reports and student achievement outcomes for all NEET and K-CET coaching contracts awarded over the last five years to prove that public money is being spent effectively?
On Procedural Violations: Why are study materials being evaluated physically outside of the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal (KPPP), and why has the Ministry allegedly failed to publish comparative analyses and reasons for tender acceptance on the portal as required by Section 13 of the KTPP Act
