The controversy over alleged counterfeit books purchased for the E.V.R. Arivulagam in Coimbatore has exposed a deeper question about how public libraries in Tamil Nadu select, verify and pay for books. More than 100 writers and publishers have now demanded disclosure of those who recommended and approved the books, along with action against the publishers named in the allegations.
The immediate dispute concerns 2,000 books reportedly purchased from Akal Vilakku and Phoenix Publishers, which the joint statement describes as fake. According to the statement carried in the report, the two publishers operated from the same address, and the books were created using information taken from websites and published under the names of fictitious authors. It also alleges that the prices paid for these books were several times higher than the prices of other books.
These claims have not been presented in the supplied material as the findings of a completed government inquiry or court proceeding. They are allegations cited in the joint statement issued by writers and publishers. That distinction matters because the controversy now involves not only the quality or authenticity of individual books, but also the functioning of a public procurement chain that is supposed to prevent such material from entering government libraries.
Tamil Nadu has 4,755 libraries, according to the statement. The scale of that network means that book procurement is not a small administrative exercise. It determines which authors and publishers gain access to public institutions, how public money is distributed across the publishing sector, and what material becomes available to readers, students and researchers through publicly funded libraries.
The state has already put in place a framework described in the statement as the Transparency in Book Procurement Policy 2024. Under the system, a 137-member expert group comprising writers, critics, academics and readers recommends fiction and general books. A 13-member committee then finalises the list. The recommendations of the expert group, the selection committee and the committee that negotiates book prices are subsequently examined by a five-member higher-level committee before approval.
On paper, this is a multi-stage process. Its design appears intended to distribute responsibility rather than leave the selection and pricing of books to a single official or institution. It also recognises that book procurement requires more than a basic purchase order: literary suitability, author identity, publishing credentials, price and public value all need to be considered.
The alleged presence of counterfeit books therefore raises a question about the gap between procedural design and operational verification. A system may have several committees and still fail if the committees do not have access to complete records, if lists are not checked against the books actually supplied, or if responsibility becomes so dispersed that no individual stage can be clearly examined after a dispute emerges.
The joint statement specifically asks the authorities to disclose whether the books were recommended by the relevant committees, who selected them, who released the payment and during which period the alleged irregularity took place. These demands point to the importance of an auditable procurement trail. Establishing the identity of the recommending, selecting and payment-authorising officials would help distinguish between a failure of due diligence, a breach of procedure and deliberate manipulation.
The statement also proposes that the final procurement list should be sent back to the members of the recommendation committee to confirm whether the books purchased were actually drawn from the list they approved. This is a relatively specific institutional concern. It suggests that the process should not end when a final list is prepared; there should also be a reconciliation stage comparing the approved list with the books supplied and paid for.
That comparison could be important in any public procurement system. A recommendation list, a final approved list, a supplier invoice and the physical stock received are separate records. If they are not matched, the system may be vulnerable to substitutions, inflated prices or the inclusion of books that were not evaluated through the stated process. The supplied report does not establish whether such a mismatch occurred in this case, but the demand for disclosure shows why the records matter.
The allegations also have consequences beyond the library department. Writers and publishers who invest in research, editing, printing and distribution depend on public procurement systems being credible. If books attributed to fictitious authors are purchased at substantially higher prices, the damage claimed by the signatories is both financial and professional: genuine works may be excluded while publishers operating through formal and transparent channels may lose access to institutional markets.
For readers, the issue is one of trust in the public library as an information institution. A library catalogue is not simply a list of commodities acquired through a tender. It is a public record of what a state considers worth making accessible. When the authenticity or provenance of books is questioned, readers are entitled to know how those books entered the system and whether they remain available for circulation.
The administrative responsibilities are spread across several levels. The Directorate of Public Libraries and the Tamil Nadu government are being asked by the signatories to protect the library network and ensure that only appropriate books are included. The committees named in the procurement policy have responsibilities at different stages, while the publishers are connected to the supply of the books under dispute. A credible examination would therefore need to establish the chain of decisions rather than focus only on the physical copies.
The writers and publishers have called for the alleged counterfeit books to be seized and for their further sale to be prevented. They have also demanded recovery of any money obtained through fraud and legal action against the publishers named in the statement. These are demands, not established findings. Their implementation would require the competent authorities to verify the books, determine whether offences occurred and identify the legal basis for recovery or prosecution.
The call for an inquiry under the supervision of the High Court reflects the signatories’ concern that a routine financial irregularity investigation may not address the wider institutional questions. However, the supplied material does not indicate that such an inquiry has been ordered. Nor does it provide the procurement records, invoices, committee minutes, verification reports or official responses needed to determine what happened.
That absence of primary documentation is the central limitation in the current public account. The report identifies the alleged books, publishers, procurement structure and demands made by the joint statement, but it does not establish the date of purchase, the exact financial value, the officials involved, the findings of any departmental review or whether the government has accepted or rejected the allegations.
The next stage should therefore be documentary and procedural. The authorities would need to clarify the procurement period, publish or examine the relevant recommendation and approval records, identify the source of the price comparison, verify the authorship and contents of the books, and state whether payments were released in accordance with the 2024 policy. Until those questions are answered, the controversy remains an allegation supported by a public statement rather than a completed finding.
What the episode confirms is that transparency in public library procurement cannot depend only on the existence of committees. It also requires traceable decisions, verifiable books, clear responsibility and a final check between what was recommended, what was approved, what was delivered and what was paid for. The credibility of Tamil Nadu’s 4,755-library network will depend on whether the authorities can provide that account and act on the evidence.
