Chennai: In the wake of what is being widely touted as a "literary scam" and "AI scam", the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday sought a detailed account of book purchases made for public libraries across Tamil Nadu, including the number of titles procured from individual publishers, the amounts paid to them and the time taken to settle their bills, as it widened its scrutiny of alleged irregularities in the procurement process.
The court's order raises questions not merely about the selection of questionable publications but also about the transparency of the procurement mechanism, particularly the possibility that a publisher was inserted into the process through digital manipulation without the knowledge of the committees constituted to recommend and select books.
A Division Bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and M D Sumathi, hearing a contempt petition relating to alleged violations of its earlier directions on library procurement, directed the Director of Public Libraries to produce all relevant procurement records and file an affidavit detailing the number of suspect books dispatched to public libraries across Tamil Nadu and the amounts paid to the respective publishers.
Court Seeks Publisher-Wise Procurement Details
The Bench also wanted the number of books and titles procured from individual publishers to be furnished. It specifically mentioned several established publishing houses, including Vijaya Pathippagam, Sandhiya Pathippagam, Kaalachuvadu, Uyirmai Pathippagam, Vishnupuram, New Century Book House, Desanthiri and Manimegala Prasuram.
Going beyond the immediate controversy, Justice Swaminathan observed that the department should publish a consolidated and comprehensive list of books procured for public libraries over the last two decades, with details of their cataloguing, quantities purchased and payments made to suppliers.
The court also suggested that the disclosure should include the dates on which publishers submitted their bills and the dates on which the bills were settled. This, it said, would help establish whether certain suppliers received preferential treatment in the clearance of payments.
The Bench, however, clarified that it was not issuing a specific direction at this stage for the publication of the 20-year procurement data. It observed that withholding such information would invite adverse inferences from the people of Tamil Nadu.
Digital Manipulation Suspected In Book Selection
The court's scrutiny also turned to the functioning of the four committees constituted under a November 5, 2025 Government Order for recommending, selecting and procuring books. The Director of Public Libraries had given the impression that even the suspect books had been recommended and approved by these committees.
However, Badrinarayanan Seshadri of Kizhakku Pathippagam, who made submissions before the Bench, expressed the view that the reputed members of the Recommendation Committee might not have been taken into confidence. He suspected that Agal Vilakku, the publisher at the centre of the controversy, could have been clandestinely inserted into the procurement process because the entire exercise was conducted digitally.
Seshadri offered to assist the investigating authorities in examining the possibility of cyber fraud. The court said it was for the investigating agencies to take up the offer.
Court Questions Rejection Of Modi Translation
The Bench also referred to information that the Tamil translation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Mann Ki Baat, titled Manathin Kural, had reportedly been recommended but rejected for inclusion in public libraries. The Director of Public Libraries maintained silence when the court sought confirmation of this information.
Also Watch:
Vigilance Inquiry And Frozen Bank Accounts
The order also recorded the State Public Prosecutor's submission that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had begun a detailed inquiry into the alleged irregularities and that three bank accounts containing a combined balance of Rs. 22 lakh had been frozen.
The Bench said it expected the Director of Public Libraries to adopt a proactive approach and place all relevant records before it. The matter was posted to November 16 for reporting compliance and further action.
