While hearing a contempt plea over non-compliance with its earlier library procurement directions, the Madras High Court has ordered registration of an FIR, freezing of accounts linked to suspect publishers, and action against officials involved in fraudulent book procurements. The Court held that public libraries cannot stock fake, plagiarised, AI-generated or falsely attributed books procured using public funds, as readers are entitled to receive authentic and reliable information.
The Court observed that the 2024 directions issued to ensure transparent procurement of books for Tamil Nadu public libraries were not followed in letter and spirit, prompting contempt proceedings. The Bench held that books containing dubious content, false narratives, plagiarised material or questionable authorship may fall within the category of works of ‘doubtful taste’ and should not be procured for public libraries.
The Court expressed concern that despite indications of large-scale fraud involving public money, no FIR had been registered, observing that offences under criminal law and the Prevention of Corruption Act appeared to be attracted. Accordingly, the Court directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR, ordered freezing of accounts connected to the alleged scam, sought identification of responsible officials, and directed that suspect books be removed from public access.
Briefly, the contempt petition in Ramasubbu v. K.Gopal, IAS arose from alleged non-compliance with an earlier Madras High Court judgment dated June 19, 2024, concerning procurement of books for public libraries in Tamil Nadu. In that earlier case, the Court had taken serious note of allegations that books were being republished under false titles, attributed to incorrect authors, and repeatedly procured for libraries in violation of prescribed norms, causing loss to the public exchequer and compromising the quality of library collections.
The Court had issued detailed directions to ensure transparency in library book procurement and ordered an inquiry into alleged irregularities. Subsequently, a major controversy surfaced regarding procurement of allegedly fake, plagiarised and falsely attributed books for public libraries, including the prestigious Periyar Arivulagam library project. The issue triggered public criticism from writers, publishers and political leaders.
The State Government cancelled procurement orders, initiated vigilance inquiries, and relieved the then Director of Public Libraries of her responsibilities. The petitioner contended that these developments demonstrated a clear violation of the Court’s earlier directions, leading to the present contempt proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi observed that court orders cannot remain merely on paper and must be implemented in both letter and spirit. The Bench stated that its 2024 directions regarding public procurement of books had been categorical and were intended to uphold the values underlying the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Act and the Public Libraries Rules. Failure to comply with those directions directly affected the authority and dignity of the Court.
The Court emphasised that public libraries are institutions created to provide reliable access to knowledge and information, particularly to persons who may not otherwise have access to quality books. Readers entering a public library are entitled to assume that the books available there are authentic and credible. According to the Court, a library cannot become a repository of bogus publications, false narratives, fake authorships or plagiarised material.
Referring to Rule 18(4) of the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Rules, 1950, the Bench held that books procured for public libraries must be of cultural value and should not be of doubtful taste. The Court extended this principle to non-fiction works as well, observing that books containing dubious content, false narratives, AI-generated material without authenticity, or plagiarised works could fall within the category of material of ‘doubtful taste’ and therefore should not be procured using public funds.
The Court also remarked that the procurement of fake books attributed to well-known personalities, including works falsely linked to economist Jean Dreze and poet Bharathiyar, undermined the statutory objectives of public libraries. It held that such practices not only breach the Public Libraries Act but also affect the public’s right to receive accurate and quality information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Bench further noted with concern that, despite the apparent commission of offences involving crores of rupees of public money, no FIR had yet been registered. It observed that a fraud of such magnitude could not have occurred without the involvement of public servants and that offences under criminal law as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act appeared to be attracted.
The Court held that the concept of ‘doubtful taste’ extends to books containing false narratives, plagiarised content and questionable authenticity. The Bench stressed that public libraries must provide authentic information and cannot stock bogus books falsely attributed to reputed authors.
