A Legal and Practical Guide to Incident Management, Suspension, Appeal and Judicial Remedies on the Government e-Marketplace
For any business dependent upon government procurement, a suspension of its account on the Government e-Marketplace (“GeM”) can be commercially serious. The consequences may extend beyond the immediate inability to participate in fresh bids: catalogues may become inaccessible, new offerings may be restricted, brand or OEM dashboards may be affected, and the seller’s ability to participate in future government procurement may be materially impaired.
Yet a GeM suspension should not be treated as an administrative fait accompli.
GeM operates pursuant to its governing contractual terms, website policies and Incident Management framework. Its administrative powers are substantial, but they are not unstructured. The exercise of those powers remains subject to the applicable policy, the requirements of procedural fairness, the scope of the show-cause notice, reasoned decision-making and, where applicable, the principles of proportionality and administrative law.
The starting point, therefore, is not panic. It is diagnosis.
A seller who receives a GeM incident notice, show-cause notice, Temporary Moratorium (“TM”) or suspension order should immediately determine what action has actually been taken, under which provision, on the basis of what material, and with what consequences.
This article sets out the legal and practical framework for doing so.
1. First understand what GeM has actually done
The expressions “suspension”, “Temporary Moratorium”, “debarment” and “blacklisting” are sometimes used loosely in commercial discussions. They should not be treated as interchangeable.
The GeM framework contemplates different forms of action depending upon the nature and severity of the deviation. The current Incident Management framework distinguishes, among other things, between Temporary Moratorium, GeM suspension and buyer-specific debarment/suspension.
GeM’s General Terms and Conditions expressly recognise its power to take administrative action against buyers and sellers for non-adherence to GeM’s website policies, terms and conditions and Incident Management Policy. Such action may include suspension, debarment or removal from GeM.
The first question for a seller should therefore be:
What exactly is the impugned action, and what provision authorises it?
This distinction matters because the legal and practical consequences are different.
Temporary Moratorium
Under the Incident Management framework, a seller placed under TM may be restricted from participating in bids and from accessing the marketplace for new offerings or catalogue updates. Catalogues and the seller’s dashboard/brand visibility may also be affected. At the same time, transactions already finalised may ordinarily continue to completion, including delivery and payment processes.
Suspension
Suspension is a more serious administrative consequence and may prevent participation in fresh transactions, bids and catalogue activity for the prescribed period. Depending upon the incident and the applicable provision, the suspension may be limited to a particular organisation/Ministry/State or may extend across buyers on the GeM platform.
Buyer-specific debarment
This is a distinct category. A procuring organisation may independently debar a seller under the applicable governmental or organisational framework, following which GeM may implement that action on the platform.
The seller must therefore identify whether it is challenging:
- a GeM administrative suspension;
- a Temporary Moratorium;
- a buyer-specific debarment;
- a Department of Expenditure debarment;
- or some combination of these.
The remedy must follow the source of the action.
2. Understand what a “GeM Incident” means
The Incident Management system is the principal mechanism through which GeM records and addresses alleged deviations from its platform terms and procurement requirements.
Incidents may arise in relation to:
- a catalogue;
- a bid;
- an order/contract;
- or the seller itself.
GeM’s own material identifies the Incident Management module as a mechanism through which incidents can be raised against orders, bids, catalogues and buyers/sellers.
The incident may originate from:
- the buyer;
- GeM Admin;
- the GeM system;
- a verifying agency; or
- another authorised source.
The nature of the allegation is critical. An allegation relating to a product catalogue is materially different from one alleging:
- non-delivery;
- inferior quality;
- false declaration;
- forged documents;
- collusive bidding;
- violation of the “One Bid per Bidder” requirement;
- non-payment of GeM charges;
- or some other integrity-related violation.
The seller should therefore obtain the incident number, incident reason, date of creation, category of deviation and applicable policy provision at the outset.
3. The first 24 hours: preserve the digital record
One of the most common mistakes made by sellers is to begin arguing before preserving evidence.
That approach is dangerous.
The GeM dashboard should be treated as a potential contemporaneous evidentiary record. The seller should preserve, wherever technically possible:
- the incident notification;
- the incident number;
- the complete incident description;
- the show-cause notice;
- the documents or material relied upon;
- the seller’s previous responses;
- all communications with the buyer;
- the final suspension/TM order;
- the date on which the action commenced;
- the duration of the action;
- affected catalogues;
- affected bids;
- relevant purchase orders;
- delivery documents;
- CRACs;
- invoices and payment records;
- OEM authorisations;
- certificates and test reports;
- relevant product specifications;
- screenshots of the dashboard before and after the action.
Do not assume that an email notification is the entire record.
Where the incident relates to a catalogue, preserve the exact version of the catalogue that was live when the alleged deviation occurred. Where it relates to a bid, preserve the bid documents, technical specifications, ATC, submitted offer and subsequent correspondence.
Where the allegation concerns an IP address, bidding pattern, pricing or common ownership, preserve the relevant technical and corporate records rather than responding merely with a general denial.
4. Identify the allegation with precision
A legally effective response should never be framed merely as:
“We have not violated any GeM rules and request that the account be restored.”
That is generally insufficient.
The seller should break the allegation down into its constituent elements.
Suppose the allegation is that the seller uploaded an incorrect product specification.
The response should establish:
- What specification did GeM say was incorrect?
- What specification was actually uploaded?
- What was the applicable technical requirement?
- What document establishes compliance?
- Was the alleged discrepancy substantive or clerical?
- Was the product ever supplied?
- Was the product accepted?
- Was there any financial or procurement prejudice?
- Was the discrepancy immediately corrected?
- Was there any intention to misrepresent?
- Was this a first incident?
- Has the same issue previously been examined?
The objective is to move the matter from a general denial to a documentary defence against each individual allegation.
5. Examine which version of the Incident Management Policy applies
This is a point frequently overlooked.
The applicable Incident Management Policy should be identified before preparing the response.
The current framework provides that, for incident and appeal decision-making, the policy version applicable is generally the version that was in force on the date on which the incident was created.
This can be important where:
- the alleged conduct occurred earlier;
- the incident was created later;
- GeM subsequently amended its Incident Management Policy;
- the seller’s suspension was imposed after the policy changed.
A seller should therefore ask:
What was the applicable Incident Management Policy on the date the incident was created?
One should not assume that the latest policy automatically governs every historical incident.
6. Scrutinise the show-cause notice
The show-cause notice is often the most important document in the entire proceeding.
A seller should examine it not merely for the allegation but for the case that GeM is actually calling upon it to answer.
A legally meaningful notice should enable the affected party to understand:
- the conduct alleged;
- the relevant bid/order/catalogue;
- the factual basis;
- the material relied upon;
- the policy provision allegedly violated;
- and the action proposed.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on show-cause proceedings requires the affected person to know the case against him sufficiently to enable an effective defence.
This principle has recently been considered specifically in the GeM context.
In Pavan Supply Corporation v. Union of India, decided by the Calcutta High Court in June 2026, the Court considered a GeM show-cause notice alleging participation in 20 bids involving the same IP address, proximity of time and proximity of price. The Court held that merely specifying that adverse action, including suspension, may follow an unsatisfactory reply does not by itself establish that GeM had predetermined the outcome. At the same time, the Court directed that the seller’s reply be considered on its own merits and left open the possibility of a personal hearing if necessary.
The lesson is important:
The existence of a proposed penalty in an SCN does not automatically make the notice unlawful. The real question is whether the notice fairly discloses the case requiring an answer and whether the authority genuinely considers the response before deciding.
7. Natural justice is not an abstract slogan
A seller challenging GeM action should avoid simply asserting:
“Principles of natural justice have been violated.”
The assertion should be particularised.
Ask:
Was the allegation adequately disclosed?
If the notice is vague, the seller cannot meaningfully defend itself.
Was relevant material disclosed?
If GeM relies upon documents, technical evidence, system-generated data or other material that is not disclosed, the seller should identify the resulting prejudice.
Was sufficient opportunity provided?
The applicable policy timelines should be checked carefully.
Was the response actually considered?
A detailed reply followed by a mechanical rejection may give rise to a stronger challenge than a case in which the authority has considered each material submission.
Is the final decision reasoned?
A decision affecting a business’s ability to participate in public procurement should disclose why the defence was rejected, particularly where substantial documentary evidence has been produced.
8. The SCN cannot necessarily support a punishment that was never put to the seller
This is one of the most important propositions emerging from recent GeM litigation.
In Shree Durga Industry v. Union of India, the Calcutta High Court dealt with a GeM suspension arising out of alleged incorrect product listing. GeM suspended the seller and also withdrew ongoing bids in which the seller had already participated.
The Court found that the withdrawal of those ongoing bids went beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The Court observed that the applicable suspension definition contemplated prospective restrictions and that no SCN had proposed withdrawal of already-participated ongoing bids. The suspension order was ultimately quashed.
The principle is wider than the facts of that case:
An administrative authority should not ordinarily impose a materially adverse consequence on the basis of a case that the affected party was never called upon to answer.
Therefore, every seller should compare:
SCN → Reply → Final Order
and ask:
What was proposed in the SCN, what was answered, and what has ultimately been imposed?
Any material expansion between those three stages deserves careful legal scrutiny.
9. Challenge the evidence, not merely the punishment
The strongest defence often lies not in arguing that the penalty is excessive but in demonstrating that the factual foundation for the penalty is inadequate.
Consider an allegation of collusive bidding based on:
- common IP address;
- similar prices;
- proximity in bid submission;
- common contact details;
- common directors;
- similar product descriptions.
The response should distinguish between:
fact and inference.
For example:
A common IP address is a fact.
Collusive bidding is an inference.
The question is whether the available evidence legitimately supports that inference.
Similarly:
Similar pricing is a fact.
Bid manipulation is an inference.
The seller should therefore explain the innocent factual basis wherever one exists:
- common office network;
- common internet service provider;
- shared corporate infrastructure;
- authorised employee activity;
- market-driven pricing;
- standard product pricing;
- independent decision-making;
- absence of common management/control;
- independent financial and operational records.
The objective is not to offer excuses but to disprove the logical bridge between the underlying fact and the alleged violation.
10. Proportionality: even an established deviation does not end the analysis
Assume, for argument’s sake, that some deviation is established.
The next question is:
Is the consequence proportionate to the conduct?
Relevant factors include:
- seriousness of the violation;
- whether the conduct was deliberate;
- whether there was dishonest intent;
- actual loss to the Government;
- prejudice to the buyer;
- value of the transaction;
- whether the defect was cured;
- whether goods were accepted;
- seller’s previous record;
- recurrence;
- duration of the restriction;
- impact on existing contracts;
- impact on future government business.
The principle of proportionality becomes especially important where the seller has a substantial prior record of satisfactory performance and the alleged deviation is technical or capable of immediate correction.
In Mishthi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court was faced with a challenge to a 24-month GeM suspension arising from allegations concerning the “One Bid per Bidder” rule and anti-competitive behaviour. The petitioner challenged the action, inter alia, on natural justice and proportionality grounds and relied upon its clean record and absence of substantive evidence supporting the allegation.
The broader proposition is that the punishment cannot be assessed in isolation from the circumstances of the seller and the actual gravity of the conduct.
11. Past performance can materially reduce the period of suspension
This is one of the most practical aspects of the Incident Management Policy.
For qualifying post-contract deviations, the policy provides for consideration of the seller’s transaction history/past performance while determining the period of Temporary Moratorium or Suspension. It also recognises certain eligible dues payable by the buyer to the seller.
Among the eligibility conditions are requirements concerning:
- the number of contracts during the relevant period;
- recurrence of the same incident reason;
- the seller’s transaction history;
- and other performance-related parameters.
Accordingly, a seller should never simply accept a suspension period without calculating whether it is entitled to a reduction under the applicable policy.
This should be treated as a quantitative exercise, not a rhetorical submission.
Prepare a table showing:
| Parameter | Seller’s position |
|---|---|
| GeM contracts in relevant period | ___ |
| Fulfilment/CRAC performance | ___ |
| Same incident reason in look-back period | ___ |
| Previous suspensions | ___ |
| Buyer dues | ___ |
| Base suspension | ___ |
| Applicable reduction | ___ |
| Corrected suspension | ___ |
The seller’s representation should then expressly request application of the relevant policy provision.
12. Outstanding buyer dues should not be ignored
A particularly important but easily overlooked consideration is whether the buyer who raised the incident itself owes money to the seller.
Where:
- CRAC has been generated;
- the goods/services have been accepted;
- the invoice has been submitted;
- the payment has become due;
- but the buyer has failed to release payment,
that fact should be documented.
The Incident Management framework expressly recognises buyer dues as relevant to reduction of the TM/Suspension period in qualifying cases.
The seller should therefore place on record:
- contract number;
- CRAC date;
- invoice date;
- amount payable;
- contractual payment timeline;
- actual payment date, if any;
- outstanding amount;
- correspondence seeking payment.
This is particularly important where the seller’s alleged deviation and the buyer’s payment default are connected.
13. Can GeM punish the same deviation twice?
Ordinarily, the answer should be approached with considerable caution.
The Incident Management framework recognises the principle that Suspension/TM should not ordinarily be imposed more than once for the same deviation, subject to specified exceptions such as a different cause of action, continuing causes and certain staggered-delivery situations.
The seller should therefore check whether:
- the same incident was previously raised;
- a previous explanation was accepted;
- the previous incident was closed;
- the same bid/order/catalogue is again being relied upon;
- the same factual conduct has already resulted in punishment.
The issue arose in Mishthi Industries, where the petitioner relied upon previous incidents in which similar explanations had apparently resulted in no action or lesser action.
A particularly strong factual situation arises where two substantially identical incidents receive inconsistent treatment without any recorded distinguishing factor.
That issue was considered in Shree Durga Industry. There, one of two materially identical incidents was closed after the seller’s explanation was accepted, while the other resulted in suspension. The High Court found the absence of any stated distinguishing feature significant and ultimately interfered with the suspension.
14. How wide can a GeM suspension be?
This is another question that deserves separate treatment.
A seller should not automatically assume that every incident justifies a restriction across the entire GeM ecosystem.
The Incident Management framework recognises that suspension may, depending upon the incident reason, be limited to:
- a particular organisation;
- Ministry;
- State; or
- extended to all buyers on GeM.
The principle of proportionality therefore applies not merely to duration, but potentially also to scope.
This issue was squarely addressed by the Delhi High Court in Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India in March 2026. The Court dealt with a GeM suspension that had the effect of preventing the petitioner from participating in tenders floated by government entities generally. The Court directed GeM and the concerned procuring entity to coordinate so that the suspension would be confined to tenders pertaining to that particular organisation.
The significance is considerable.
A seller may therefore ask:
Why should a dispute arising out of one buyer or one procurement relationship disable the seller from participating in entirely unrelated government procurements?
The answer must be found in the applicable policy and the facts of the incident.
15. Existing bids and contracts require immediate attention
A seller under suspension should immediately prepare a separate inventory of:
Existing bids
- bids submitted;
- technical evaluation pending;
- financial bid pending;
- RA pending;
- L1 status;
- orders awaiting award.
Existing contracts
- awarded contracts;
- supplies pending;
- deliveries completed;
- CRAC pending;
- invoices pending;
- payments outstanding.
Do not assume that suspension automatically has the same consequence for each category.
The policy governing the particular incident must be examined.
Recent judicial authority also demonstrates why this distinction matters. In Shree Durga Industry, the High Court specifically objected to the withdrawal of ongoing bids where that consequence had neither been proposed in the SCN nor supported by the applicable definition of suspension.
Accordingly, the seller’s immediate representation should identify every ongoing commercial process potentially affected by the suspension and seek a specific direction regarding its treatment.
16. Do not confuse GeM suspension with buyer-side contractual action
A seller may simultaneously face:
- GeM Incident Management proceedings;
- buyer-side contractual proceedings;
- liquidated damages;
- recovery;
- termination;
- performance security consequences;
- buyer-specific debarment;
- other proceedings under applicable law.
These are not necessarily the same proceeding.
A seller should therefore avoid assuming:
“If GeM closes the incident, the buyer cannot take any further action.”
Equally, the buyer’s contractual action does not automatically establish that GeM’s independent administrative conclusion is correct.
Each proceeding must be analysed according to its own source of power, contractual provision and procedural framework.
17. Respond through the prescribed GeM mechanism
A frequent practical mistake is to send the defence through every possible channel—email, grievance ticket, buyer correspondence and informal communications—while failing to properly respond on the Incident Management dashboard.
The Incident Management framework contemplates responses through the IM Dashboard and provides a specific process for incident responses and appeals.
Therefore:
A seller should treat the Incident Management Dashboard as the primary procedural record.
Emails may be useful for preserving supplementary evidence or dealing with technical problems, but they should not substitute for the prescribed incident response mechanism.
18. The GeM appeal: a narrow but important remedy
Once TM/Suspension has been imposed, the seller should immediately check whether an appeal is available and, if so, the deadline.
Under the current framework:
- an appeal may be filed after imposition of TM/Suspension;
- it must generally be filed within 10 calendar days;
- only one appeal is available against an incident;
- the appeal is intended to rely upon additional material evidence that was not available for consideration when the original decision was taken;
- the appellate authority may increase or decrease the period depending upon the facts.
This is crucial:
The appeal should not be treated as a second copy of the original reply.
The seller should identify what new material changes the evidentiary position.
For example:
- a certificate obtained subsequently;
- an expert report;
- a technical explanation;
- server/IP records;
- corporate documents;
- independent manufacturer confirmation;
- documentary evidence received after the original decision;
- evidence demonstrating that the allegation was factually impossible;
- evidence showing that the buyer itself accepted the relevant performance.
19. Filing an appeal does not necessarily stop the suspension
This is perhaps the most commercially important feature of the appeal mechanism.
The Incident Management framework provides that the effect of TM/Suspension continues while the appeal is pending, irrespective of the eventual outcome.
Therefore, a seller whose business is substantially dependent upon government procurement should not assume that:
“We have appealed, therefore the account is effectively restored.”
It is not.
If the suspension will expire before the appeal is meaningfully decided, the seller should also consider the urgency of judicial intervention.
20. When should the High Court be approached?
The existence of an internal GeM appeal does not mean that a writ petition under Article 226 is invariably unavailable.
At the same time, a writ petition should not be treated as an automatic substitute for the contractual/platform remedy.
The more compelling grounds for judicial intervention may include:
- absence of a meaningful show-cause notice;
- violation of natural justice;
- action beyond the scope of the SCN;
- failure to consider material evidence;
- non-speaking or mechanical order;
- application of the wrong policy;
- action contrary to GeM’s own Incident Management Policy;
- repeated punishment for the same deviation;
- manifest disproportionality;
- arbitrary extension of a buyer-specific issue to the entire GeM platform;
- jurisdictional error;
- serious and immediate commercial prejudice.
The seller should be conscious, however, that High Courts ordinarily consider the existence of an alternative remedy. A writ petition therefore requires a carefully constructed case explaining why judicial intervention is warranted despite the available internal mechanism.
The stronger the procedural defect, the stronger the case for such intervention.
21. Recent judicial decisions show that GeM action is amenable to scrutiny
The emerging jurisprudence is particularly instructive.
Shree Durga Industry v. Union of India
The Calcutta High Court quashed a GeM suspension after finding, among other things, that the withdrawal of ongoing bids went beyond the SCN and that the treatment of materially identical incidents was not adequately explained.
Lesson: GeM must remain within the boundaries of the notice and its own governing framework.
Pavan Supply Corporation v. Union of India
In June 2026, the Calcutta High Court considered a challenge to a GeM SCN concerning alleged common IP address, timing and pricing across bids. The Court declined to quash the SCN merely because it referred to a possible two-year suspension, holding that such reference did not by itself demonstrate a predetermined conclusion. It nevertheless directed GeM to consider the seller’s response on its own merits and left open the possibility of a personal hearing.
Lesson: A challenge to an SCN requires more than pointing to the severity of the proposed punishment; the real issue is whether the notice fairly communicates the case and whether the subsequent decision-making is genuine and lawful.
Acromax Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Government e-Marketplace
In May 2026, the Delhi High Court considered a challenge to a 60-day GeM suspension. The Court directed expeditious consideration of the pending appeal and permitted further judicial recourse if the grievance was not adequately addressed.
Lesson: Even where the internal appeal exists, courts may intervene to ensure that the appeal is decided promptly where the suspension period itself creates serious commercial consequences.
Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
In March 2026, the Delhi High Court dealt with a GeM suspension that effectively prevented participation in tenders across government entities. The Court directed the respondents to ensure that the suspension was confined to tenders pertaining to the particular procuring organisation involved in the underlying dispute.
Lesson: The scope of an administrative restriction must have a rational relationship with the underlying misconduct.
Mishthi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The case involved a challenge to a 24-month GeM suspension arising from allegations concerning the “One Bid per Bidder” rule and anti-competitive conduct. The petitioner raised issues of natural justice, proportionality, previous satisfactory explanations and absence of substantive evidence.
Lesson: A seller’s prior record, evidentiary circumstances and procedural fairness may all become relevant when the legality and proportionality of a long suspension are examined.
22. Grounds for challenging a GeM suspension: a practical legal checklist
A seller should examine the following categories systematically.
A. Procedural grounds
- Was a proper SCN issued?
- Was the allegation sufficiently specific?
- Was adequate time provided?
- Was supporting material disclosed?
- Was the seller’s response considered?
- Was a hearing necessary in the circumstances?
- Is the final order reasoned?
B. Jurisdictional grounds
- Was the correct authority acting?
- Was the correct policy applied?
- Was the applicable version of the policy used?
- Was the penalty authorised by the relevant provision?
- Was the action beyond the power contemplated by the policy?
C. Evidentiary grounds
- Is the allegation factually correct?
- Does the evidence establish the allegation?
- Is GeM relying on an inference unsupported by material?
- Are there innocent explanations for the underlying data?
- Has contradictory evidence been ignored?
D. Administrative-law grounds
- arbitrariness;
- non-application of mind;
- disproportionality;
- unequal treatment;
- irrational classification;
- failure to follow one’s own policy;
- legitimate expectation, where applicable;
- procedural unfairness.
E. Penalty-related grounds
- excessive duration;
- incorrect calculation;
- failure to consider past performance;
- failure to consider buyer dues;
- failure to distinguish first-time and repeat conduct;
- excessive territorial/organisational scope;
- collateral consequences not contemplated by the SCN.
23. How should the seller draft its representation?
The representation should look like a legal submission, not a customer-service complaint.
A useful structure is:
I. Preliminary submissions
Identify the incident, impugned action and fundamental objections.
II. Brief chronology
Set out the events in date order.
III. Response to each allegation
Deal with every allegation separately.
IV. Documentary evidence
Number the annexures and cross-reference them.
V. Applicable policy
Identify the exact provision and explain why it does or does not apply.
VI. Procedural objections
Address defects in the SCN, opportunity, consideration of evidence or final decision.
VII. Proportionality
Explain why the proposed/imposed consequence is excessive.
VIII. Past performance
Place the seller’s transaction history and eligibility for reduction on record.
IX. Buyer dues
Identify any outstanding amounts.
X. Specific relief
Ask for precise, alternative reliefs.
24. What relief should actually be sought?
Do not end the representation with merely:
“Kindly unblock our account.”
The prayer should be precise.
Depending upon the facts, the seller may seek:
- closure of the incident;
- withdrawal of the TM/Suspension;
- restoration of the GeM account;
- restoration of catalogues;
- restoration of OEM/brand dashboard;
- restoration of bidding privileges;
- removal/correction of adverse dashboard remarks;
- permission to participate in ongoing bids;
- continuation of already-participated bids;
- restriction of action to the concerned buyer/organisation;
- reduction of the suspension period;
- application of past-performance reduction;
- consideration of buyer dues;
- personal hearing;
- reconsideration by the competent authority;
- passing of a reasoned order.
Alternative reliefs should also be sought where appropriate.
For example:
“Without prejudice to the foregoing submissions, and in the alternative, if the competent authority is of the view that some deviation is established, the seller respectfully requests that the period of suspension be reduced in accordance with the applicable provisions governing past performance and buyer dues.”
That is considerably more effective than an all-or-nothing approach.
25. What a seller should not do
There are several common mistakes that can materially weaken a defence.
Do not create another GeM account to circumvent the restriction.
Do not alter documents retrospectively.
Do not upload inconsistent versions of the same explanation.
Do not make unsupported allegations against the buyer.
Do not send contradictory explanations to different authorities.
Do not ignore the Incident Management Dashboard.
Do not miss the appeal deadline.
Do not assume that an email to GeM constitutes a formal response to an incident.
Do not simply repeat the original SCN reply in an appeal when the policy requires additional material evidence.
Do not wait until the suspension has nearly expired before seeking legal advice.
Most importantly:
Do not allow the evidentiary record to be created entirely by the buyer or GeM.
The seller should proactively create a coherent documentary record of its own case.
26. A 48-hour action plan for a suspended seller
First six hours
- Download the SCN and suspension/TM order.
- Record the incident number.
- Identify the incident reason.
- Identify the applicable policy.
- Note the date and duration of the restriction.
- Preserve the dashboard.
Within 24 hours
Prepare a chronology covering:
- bid;
- order;
- delivery;
- CRAC;
- invoice;
- payment;
- buyer correspondence;
- incident;
- response;
- SCN;
- suspension.
Then identify every factual allegation and the document answering it.
Within 48 hours
Complete:
- legal review of the SCN;
- evidentiary review;
- policy analysis;
- past-performance calculation;
- buyer-dues calculation;
- assessment of ongoing bids/contracts;
- assessment of appeal deadline;
- assessment of possible judicial remedy.
If the suspension has significant commercial consequences, legal strategy should be finalised before the appeal window closes.
27. A useful way to think about the problem: four questions
Every GeM suspension dispute can broadly be reduced to four questions.
Question 1: Did the seller actually commit the alleged deviation?
This is the factual/evidentiary question.
Question 2: Was the seller dealt with in accordance with the applicable GeM policy?
This is the procedural and jurisdictional question.
Question 3: Even if a deviation occurred, is the consequence authorised and proportionate?
This is the administrative-law question.
Question 4: What is the most effective remedy?
That may involve:
- response to the incident;
- representation;
- appeal;
- correction of the incident;
- buyer-level resolution;
- or, in an appropriate case, proceedings under Article 226.
These questions should be answered separately.
28. The larger legal principle
There is an important balance at the heart of GeM’s Incident Management system.
GeM has a legitimate and necessary interest in protecting the integrity of public procurement. A government marketplace cannot function effectively if sellers can freely submit inaccurate information, manipulate bidding processes, supply inferior goods or otherwise undermine procurement discipline.
The existence of a strong administrative framework is therefore neither surprising nor objectionable.
But administrative power is not unstructured power.
Where a platform exercises a power that materially affects a business’s ability to participate in public procurement, the exercise of that power must remain tethered to the governing rules and the basic requirements of fair administrative decision-making.
The recent judicial decisions illustrate this distinction.
The courts have not suggested that GeM has no power to suspend sellers. Rather, they have examined how that power was exercised: whether the seller knew the case against it, whether the consequence travelled beyond the SCN, whether similar cases were treated consistently, whether the applicable policy was followed and whether the scope of the restriction was justified.
That is the correct legal framework within which a seller should approach a suspension.
29. Conclusion: A GeM suspension is a legal problem, not merely a technical problem
The instinctive response to a GeM suspension is often to contact the helpdesk and request restoration of the account.
That may be necessary, but in a serious case it is rarely sufficient.
A suspension should instead be approached as a structured administrative proceeding:
Identify the action → preserve the record → identify the allegation → examine the SCN → identify the applicable policy → challenge the evidence → establish the factual defence → examine proportionality → calculate policy-based reductions → address ongoing contracts → file the appeal within time → and assess judicial remedies where necessary.
The most important practical point is perhaps the simplest:
Do not wait until the account is suspended to start understanding the Incident Management Policy.
And once a suspension or Temporary Moratorium is imposed, do not assume that the fact of suspension itself conclusively establishes misconduct.
The real questions are:
What was alleged?
What was proved?
What procedure was followed?
What does the applicable policy permit?
Was the consequence proportionate?
And was the seller given a genuine opportunity to answer the case against it?
Where those questions reveal a serious procedural, evidentiary or legal defect, the seller may have meaningful grounds to seek reconsideration, reduction or withdrawal of the action—and, in an appropriate case, judicial review.
This article is intended as general legal information and should not be treated as a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular GeM incident, SCN or suspension order. The applicable GeM policy should always be verified against the policy version governing the relevant incident.
