Who is responsible for the Library Book Procurement row? The Madras High Court, unhappy that the State has not named even one person, has pulled up the Tamil Nadu government and the Director of Public Libraries and called for a detailed affidavit by Monday.
Madurai: Barely a day after it ordered the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR over the procurement of fake and AI-generated books for public libraries, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday told the State that the “story is not over” and voiced disappointment that not a single culprit had been identified so far in the Library Book Procurement row [Ramasubbu v. K. Gopal, IAS & Anr.].
The contempt petition came up on November 11, 2026 before a Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi, listed for compliance with the Bench’s order of November 10. The remarks below were made orally during the hearing. No written order of the day was available at the time of writing.
No culprit named
The Bench described the State’s failure to name anyone as a confession of inefficiency. Addressing the Director, Justice Swaminathan remarked:
“Even now, you are not giving basic answer. You could not identify a single person who has erred within 24 hours.”
When the Director said she would try to furnish every detail by Monday, the judge responded: “Try to? You can’t even prima facie identify the culprits.” The Bench also said it was shocked that she was attributing the procurement to the expert committees.
Justice Swaminathan added that he had received “inside information” that the Tamil translation of the Prime Minister’s book Mann Ki Baat, titled Manathin Kural, had been recommended by the expert committee but not procured, while Agal Vilakku’s books were found fit to be bought.
Rs 17 lakh and four committees
The Director of Public Libraries told the Court that 1,700 titles were procured from Agal Vilakku Publications for the Periyar Arivulagam library in Coimbatore at a cost of Rs 17 lakh. A book, she said, is selected only after recommendations pass through four committees.
Did that mean Agal Vilakku had cleared all four filters, the Bench asked. The Director sought four days to place more material on record, and the State likewise sought four days to file the FIR, saying it wished to proceed cautiously and not name people carelessly, since those named would face contempt proceedings.
A publisher’s view from outside
Publisher Badri Seshadri was present to assist the Bench. After 22 years in publishing, he said, his first observation was that Rs 17 lakh was “obscenely high” for a single publisher, and that anyone comparing the amounts paid to different publishers could have spotted it.
He said he would not place the entire blame on the recommending committees, whose members were reputable, and suggested that it was not possible for any of the 112 experts on the panel to have recommended a single Agal Vilakku book. It was possible, he said, that someone had “inserted” those titles, and this needed inquiry. Large sums going to particular publishers had been a recurring problem, he added, and the AI element was new this time.
Justice Swaminathan noted a point Mr. Seshadri had raised publicly: suppliers’ bills are not always settled in the order they are submitted, and those who pay “speed money” may be paid first. The Bench said the Director must also set out the dates on which bills were submitted and settled. Mr. Seshadri also referred to a report of out-of-turn bill settlement at a library in Tenkasi, and to a report that some librarians had questioned the purchases but did not pursue the matter because orders came “from above”.
The State asks for caution
The Additional Advocate General urged the Bench to go slow. G.O. No. 250 contains various names and, prima facie, those persons were responsible for selecting the titles, he said, but there may be dissent notes. The State had to examine physically who recommended the titles, how they were included and who finally approved them, and 24 hours was not enough.
Government representatives, he pointed out, can make statements only on instructions. Mr. Seshadri could speculate, he said, while the Director could not. Officers had worked continuously for 10 to 12 hours on compliance, he told the Court.
Affidavit by Monday
The Bench asked the State and the Director of Public Libraries to take note of Mr. Seshadri‘s submissions and respond, and directed the Director to file the response on affidavit by Monday.
The allegations about the procurement are still under investigation. No one has been charged, the Court has not ruled on anyone’s liability, and every person concerned is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why the hearing matters
The Court is using its contempt jurisdiction to make sure its 2024 directions on transparent book procurement are actually enforced. By asking who recommended, who inserted and who approved the titles, and when bills were paid, the Bench is pressing for accountability to be traced down the chain of decisions rather than left at the level of committees.
At the same time, the State’s plea for caution reflects a real concern: those named as contemnors face serious consequences, so the identification must rest on the record. How the affidavit due on Monday answers the Court’s questions will shape the next stage of the case.
Case Title: Ramasubbu v. K. Gopal, IAS & Anr. [Cont. P.(MD) No. 3763 of 2026]
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Date of Hearing: November 11, 2026
Earlier Order: November 10, 2026