When the Supreme Court refused to freeze the Adani-led Dharavi Slum Redevelopment project this March, it made one quiet but telling move: it ordered that “the original files shall be produced in Court”.
For a bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, this wasn’t a procedural formality. In the world of public tenders, “original files” mean the entire paper trail — minutes of committee meetings, notings by senior bureaucrats, cabinet resolutions, and correspondence between departments. In effect, the Court signalled that it wants to see, line by line, how Maharashtra reversed a decision that once declared a different winner.
Also Read: Part 1
Dharavi Redevelopment: Inside the Supreme Court Petition that Challenges Maharashtra U-Turn
The Files in Question
The documents now summoned stretch from 2018 to 2023, covering both tender rounds:
Tender DRP/1/2018 — the first global bid in which SecLink Technologies Corporation offered ₹7,200 crore and was declared the highest qualified bidder.
Cabinet Resolution (29 Oct 2020) and Government Resolution (5 Nov 2020) — which cancelled that process and ordered a new one.
Fresh Tender DRP/2/2022, its bid evaluation reports, and the Letter of Award dated 17 Jul 2023 issued to Adani Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Affidavits and legal opinions — including the 2019 opinion of the Advocate General on whether the first tender could legally continue.
Together, these records will let the Court reconstruct each step: who proposed the cancellation, when railway-land inclusion was raised, and whether mandatory approvals came from the right authority.
Also Read: Part 2
Dharavi’s Game-Changing Twist: How Rewritten Rules Reshaped ₹ 3 Lac Cr. Dream
Why the Court Intervened in the Accounting
Alongside seeking the files, the bench also issued a second directive:
“All payments towards the development of the project shall be made only through one bank account … from which all credits and disbursements will be made for execution of the contract(s).”
The order adds that “proper accounts, including invoices, etc., as required by the Income Tax Act, shall be maintained.”
This means the Adani Group-led special purpose vehicle and the state’s Dharavi Redevelopment Authority must route every rupee of construction expenditure, lease premium, and rehabilitation payment through a single traceable account.
Such direction is rare at the interim stage. It effectively places the project under a judicial transparency audit while allowing work to continue.
The Petitioners’ Trail of Submissions
In its filings, SecLink urged the Court to examine original minutes and notings to verify:
Who authorised the 2020 cancellation? The petition claims the approval was signed by an officer “who was not the Chief Secretary at the relevant time,” contrary to procedure.
Whether railway-land inclusion was genuine or post-facto. Government records allegedly show no acquisition despite citing it as the reason to scrap the old tender.
If tender terms were altered to restrict foreign-led bidders. The 2022 tender added an Indian-majority clause absent in 2018.
By calling for the full files, the Court can now directly test these claims against the government’s official correspondence, rather than relying only on affidavits.
Signals from the Bench
The 7 March 2025 order shows the judges’ cautious stance:
“Two issues have been raised … the first relates to cancellation of the first tender … the second relates to the terms fixed for the second tender … the tender conditions were tweaked so as to disable the petitioner from submitting a tender.”
Yet instead of issuing a stay, the Court balanced interests: it protected the ongoing work but ring-fenced its finances and paperwork for scrutiny.
Legal observers read this as a message to maintain transparency without derailing construction, a model that could influence future infrastructure disputes.
What the Files Could Reveal
Once produced, the files are expected to show:
Internal notings from the Committee of Secretaries (27 Aug 2020) meeting that first proposed cancellation.
The Cabinet’s deliberations were recorded on 29 Oct 2020.
Communications between the Housing Department, the Advocate General, and the Chief Minister’s Office in 2019–20.
Comparative bid analyses from the 2018 and 2022 processes.
Together, these could answer the Supreme Court’s central question: Was the retendering a legitimate policy decision, or an administrative overreach?
The Road Ahead
The case will return late this year, when the state and Adani are expected to file detailed replies. Until then, the Dharavi Redevelopment SPV operates under a court-mandated paper trail — every cheque, every demolition, every tender addendum subject to future examination. For now, India’s largest slum-redevelopment project continues, but with the highest court of the land literally asking to see the files.
Document Citations (All from “Dharavi Supreme Court Petition Order”, 2025):
Committee of Secretaries resolution confirming SecLink as highest bidder – pp. 314–322
Government & Cabinet resolutions cancelling first tender – pp. 330–342
Advocate General’s opinion – pp. 343–347
Fresh tender (DRP/2/2022) – pp. 467–656
Adani Letter of Award – pp. 703–705
Petition allegations on authorisation and TDR – pp. 697–699
Supreme Court order (7 Mar 2025) – pp. 2–3
Also Read: Part 1
Dharavi Redevelopment: Inside the Supreme Court Petition that Challenges Maharashtra U-Turn
Also Read: Part 2
Dharavi’s Game-Changing Twist: How Rewritten Rules Reshaped ₹ 3 Lac Cr. Dream |
