Senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders and former Delhi ministers Manish Sisodia and Satyendra Jain have reportedly told the Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) that Public Works Department (PWD) officials should be held accountable for the alleged inflated costs in the previous government’s school classrooms project, according to statements given to the agency, accessed by HT.
But PWD engineers who were questioned by ACB officials have accused the changes that resulted in the inflation of the project cost as having been done on the orders of the two ministers, the papers reveal.
ACB is probing suspected violations in a project to build 12,748 semi-permanent classrooms in schools operated by the then AAP government. Originally worth ₹860 crore, the project cost rose to over ₹2,800 crore, reportedly without the issuance of new tenders or following customary procurement norms. Jain was interrogated by ACB on June 6 and Sisodia on June 20. Around 20 other witnesses – largely government functionaries – were interrogated in May this year.
Their depositions, as per internal ACB records, reveal a cycle of blame between political and bureaucratic leadership.
Asked if he had sanctioned the construction of semi-permanent buildings (SPS) at a meeting on August 8, 2015, Sisodia stated that the meeting was presided over by the principal secretary of the PWD and that officers there would have made any decision. He stood by the same stand when questioned why SPS buildings were selected instead of permanent buildings already under construction.
On why permissions were not taken from local authorities, Sisodia said worried officials would have abided by the law.
When asked why one consolidated estimate was not given and 16 individual preliminary estimates were done, Sisodia replied that officers handling the project should be interrogated. Sisodia believed that all the work was carried out in line with the General Finance Rules — which are to be implemented in cases pertaining to public finances.
ACB, in turn, has discovered, officials involved familiarly assert, that these 16 estimates were broken down into 63 smaller tenders. Sisodia denied being aware of the architecture firm that had supposedly suggested costly specifications to increase expenditures.
Jain also stated that he did not sanction SPS structures, and PWD was constructing them on vacant plots available. When he was questioned regarding modifications in specifications, Jain replied that the education department, the client agency, had requested upgrading for improved student facilities—like vitrified tiles, kota stone floors, and brick cladding. Jain confirmed he did not know the architectural firm.
But contradicting both the leaders, a PWD project manager, also interrogated by ACB, asserted that works amounting to ₹42.5 crore in five schools were conducted without inviting fresh tenders, on verbal directions from Jain. The officer alleged Jain sanctioned the shift from permanent to SPS buildings and personally supervised the project—visiting schools, taking calls, and holding meetings. A PowerPoint presentation by the architecture firm was allegedly presented to Jain on June 21, 2016, in his room, the PWD official informed ACB. This official informed ACB, that Jain was "close to" the architecture firm and a firm representative accompanied Jain in some meetings.
The official also purportedly told Jain visited a school location on July 4, 2016, sanctioned a sample model, and ordered changes in scope of work. He complained the richer specifications were enforced at Jain's behest. The other former senior PWD engineer, in a statement to ACB, stated Jain and Sisodia would inspect sites regularly and sanction changes.
ACB is now set to consider contradictions in testimony as it probes if due process was circumvented and if political meddling caused inflation of costs in the high-value classrooms project.
