The Delhi Jal Board’s planned spraying of an anti-frothing agent in the Yamuna has triggered a tender controversy, with Aam Aadmi Party Delhi president Saurabh Bharadwaj alleging that equipment, chemicals and labour were positioned at Kalindi Kunj before the tender was opened.
Mr. Bharadwaj made the allegation after showing a contractor-installed setup at the Kalindi Kunj ghat. He said a container at the site was marked “Defoamer Stock” and claimed that tanks and other equipment used to spray chemicals on the river had already been installed.
“The container belonging to a company is marked ‘Defoamer Stock’, which means the tanks and all the equipment used to spray chemicals to remove foam from the Yamuna have already been set up,” Mr. Bharadwaj said, according to The Hindu. He also said that motors fitted onto boats had arrived and that equipment and labour had been present at the site for two to three days.
The AAP leader alleged that the person who installed the setup told party representatives that a DJB engineer had instructed them to begin work. He questioned how the agency could have equipment and personnel ready if the tender process had not yet begun.
“The Delhi Jal Board has not even opened the tender yet. How, then, does the DJB already know that this tender will be awarded?” Mr. Bharadwaj asked. He alleged that the arrangement indicated large-scale corruption and suggested that officials already knew which contractor would receive the work.
The allegation relates to the use of a defoaming agent in portions of the Yamuna where frothing occurs. Such spraying is intended to address the visible foam on the river’s surface, but the immediate report does not provide details of the tender’s estimated value, eligibility conditions, technical specifications or the agency’s stated schedule for the operation.
The reported setup has raised a governance question around the sequencing of public procurement and field mobilisation. If equipment and labour were deployed before the tender was formally opened, the DJB would need to clarify who authorised the activity, whether any preparatory work was officially approved and how the arrangement relates to the tender process. The Hindu report did not include an immediate response from the Delhi BJP.
The episode also places attention on the limits of treating river foam as an isolated surface problem. The anti-frothing operation described in the report is a visible intervention at selected locations, while responsibility for the wider condition of the Yamuna involves water-quality management, sewage control and coordination among public agencies. The supplied report, however, does not establish the effectiveness or environmental implications of the proposed chemical treatment.
Mr. Bharadwaj’s allegations could not, on the basis of the report, be treated as proof that a tender was improperly predetermined. The immediate issue requiring clarification is whether the material and manpower at Kalindi Kunj were deployed under a valid authorisation and, if so, how that authorisation was issued before the tender was opened.
The DJB’s tender process, any formal response from the agency and the contractor’s authorisation will determine the next stage of the dispute.
