Case at a Glance
In a contempt petition alleging breach of its 19 June 2024 directions on how Tamil Nadu buys books for public libraries, the Madurai Bench found that its directions had been “brazenly and egregiously breached” and that a crime appeared to have been committed. It directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR forthwith, ordered the bank account of a publication house and others involved to be frozen, asked for disciplinary action including suspension of officials, and told librarians to inventory suspect books and make them unavailable to readers.
The case traces back to S. Krishnan v. The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education (W.P.(MD) No. 10150 of 2019), disposed of on 19 June 2024 by a Bench of Justice R. Mahadevan (as he then was) and Justice G.R. Swaminathan. The petition alleged that publishers re-published older or nationalised books under new titles and author names, that books were bought repeatedly despite a five-year bar on re-purchase, and that most books printed for government library orders were not available in the open market. The respondents filed no counter in five years, and the Court directed that procurement follow G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 7 March 2024 (the Transparent Book Procurement Policy 2024), that shortlisted books be published online for a month of public objections, that a committee enquire into the allegations within five months, and that action be taken against the officials concerned.
In 2026, writer Perumal Murugan publicly criticised a large procurement fraud linked to Periyar Arivulagam in Coimbatore, and public outcry followed. The order records that the Government acknowledged the system had been exploited: the Director of Public Libraries was removed, a DVAC enquiry began and pending procurement orders were cancelled. Even so, no FIR had been registered. A third party, Ramasubbu, filed a contempt petition against the Secretary, Higher Education Department, and the Director of Public Libraries.
The Key Question Before the Court
Had the State complied with the High Court’s 2024 directions on book procurement for public libraries, and what must follow when bogus books are bought with public money?
Why the Court Said “Actors Change, Actions Do Not”
The Bench observed that the writ petition was filed under one government, disposed of under another and that the present scandal surfaced under a third, remarking that “Actors change, actions do not.” It rejected the idea that the new procurement G.O. wiped the slate clean, holding that “the issuance of G.O cannot absolve the department of the misdeeds committed in the past.” Purchases from entities such as “Agal Vilakku”, “Sigma” and “Phoenix” publishers should not have happened had the 2024 directions been followed. When the Public Prosecutor answered in the negative on whether a crime had been committed, the Court found otherwise: the fraud “could not have taken place but for the active involvement of government servants,” and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the BNS appeared to be attracted.
The Court also read Rule 18(4) of the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Rules, 1950 — which requires purchased books to be of general interest and cultural value, by standard authors and not of “doubtful taste” — expansively, extending it to non-fiction and to AI-generated and plagiarised works: “A book with dubious content and false narratives is certainly one with doubtful taste.” Readers are entitled to presume that library books are authentic, and bogus books infringe the right to receive accurate information under Article 19(1)(a). The Court noted that a book on democracy attributed to economist Jean Drèze, found in the Kalaignar Centenary Library in Madurai, had been denounced by him as fake. “Procurement cannot be linked to payment of commission,” it said.
What the Court Actually Held
- The 2024 directions in S. Krishnan had been breached; the Court said it did not want that order “to remain merely on paper.”
- The DVAC must register an FIR forthwith, and the bank account of Agal Vilakku Publication, its proprietor and others involved must be frozen immediately.
- The Government must immediately take disciplinary action, including suspension of the officials involved; the Director of Public Libraries must name the officials responsible for fraudulent procurements over the last two years or more so they can be impleaded as contemnors.
- Librarians must inventory suspect books and make them unavailable to readers; the exact amount spent must be disclosed, records produced as photocopies, and an affidavit filed setting out the full sequence of events. The matter was listed on 11 November 2026.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Public libraries are funded with taxpayers’ money; the order treats bogus or plagiarised books as both a financial loss and a violation of readers’ right to accurate information.
- It shows that a contempt court will not accept a new policy document as a substitute for accountability for past procurement.
- The expansive reading of ‘doubtful taste’ in Rule 18(4) covers AI-generated and plagiarised works — a live concern for any public procurement of books.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Readers and Authors
- You are entitled to presume a library book is authentic; the Court linked this to Article 19(1)(a).
- Authors whose names are misused on fake titles can point to this order’s findings.
- Watch for the procurement web page and one-month objection window ordered in 2024.
For Counsel
- A third party can bring a contempt petition to enforce public-interest directions.
- Rule 18(4) of the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Rules, 1950 is now read to cover non-fiction and AI-generated content.
- Ask for specific remedial steps — FIR, account freezes, disclosure affidavits — rather than only a compliance report.
Key Takeaways
- The Madurai Bench found its 2024 library-procurement directions breached.
- DVAC was directed to register an FIR forthwith; a publisher’s bank account was ordered frozen.
- Suspect books must be inventoried and withdrawn from readers.
- Bogus books infringe the right to receive accurate information under Article 19(1)(a).
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the 2024 order on library book purchases require?
It required procurement under G.O.Ms.No.69 of 7 March 2024, a functional website with procurement notices, publication of shortlisted books for one month of public objections, an enquiry committee report within five months, and action against officials concerned.
Why did the Court order an FIR?
The Court found that a crime appeared to have been committed, that the fraud could not have happened without the active involvement of government servants, and that Prevention of Corruption Act and BNS provisions appeared to be attracted.
What happens to the suspect books?
Librarians were directed to immediately take an inventory of suspect books and make them unavailable to readers.
Conclusion
The order turns a five-year-old public-interest direction into a live accountability exercise, with an FIR, frozen accounts and the naming of officials “from top to bottom.” Its reasoning — that a library book “cannot be a bogus product” — ties public procurement directly to the reader’s constitutional right to accurate information.
Practical takeaway: Where public-interest directions are ignored, a contempt petition can secure concrete steps — criminal registration, asset freezes and disclosure — not just fresh assurances.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com