Blame game mars probe into Delhi classroom project cost

ACB is probing alleged violations in a project involving construction of 12,748 semi-permanent classrooms in schools run by then AAP government

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.

AAP leader Manish Sisodia. (Vipin Kumar/HT Photo)

However, PWD engineers interviewed by ACB investigators have alleged the changes that led to the ballooning of the project cost were made at the direction of the two ministers, the documents show.

ACB is investigating alleged violations in a project involving the construction of 12,748 semi-permanent classrooms in schools run by the then AAP government. Initially valued at ₹860 crore, the project cost ballooned to over ₹2,800 crore, allegedly without new tenders or adherence to standard procurement protocols. Jain was questioned by ACB on June 6 while Sisodia was questioned on June 20. About 20 other witnesses – mostly government officials – were questioned in May this year.

Their testimonies, according to internal ACB records, indicate a loop of blame between political and bureaucratic leadership.

Asked whether he approved the construction of semi-permanent structures (SPS) at a meeting on August 8, 2015, Sisodia said the meeting was chaired by the principal secretary of the PWD and any decision would have been taken by officers present. He repeated this position when asked why SPS buildings were chosen over permanent ones that were already under construction.

On why permissions weren’t sought from local bodies, Sisodia said concerned officials would have followed the rules.

When asked why a single consolidated estimate wasn’t submitted and instead 16 separate preliminary estimates were prepared, Sisodia said officers dealing with the project should be questioned. Sisodia expressed confidence that all work was done within the framework of the General Finance Rules — which are to be followed in matters relating to public finances.

ACB, according to officials familiar with the matter, has found that these 16 estimates were reportedly split into 63 smaller tenders. Sisodia denied knowledge of the architectural firm alleged to have recommended expensive specifications that drove up costs.

Jain too said he did not approve SPS structures, and they were being built by PWD on available vacant plots. When asked about the changes in specifications, Jain said the education department, the client agency, had sought improvements for better student facilities—such as vitrified tiles, kota stone flooring, and brick cladding. He denied knowing the architectural firm.

However, contradicting both leaders, a project manager with PWD, also questioned by ACB, said that works worth ₹42.5 crore across five schools were carried out without floating new tenders, based on verbal instructions from Jain. The official claimed Jain approved the move from permanent to SPS buildings and closely monitored the project—visiting sites, making phone calls, and convening meetings. A PowerPoint presentation by the architectural firm was reportedly shown to Jain on June 21, 2016, in his chamber, according to the PWD official’s statement to ACB. This official told ACB, that Jain was “close to” the architectural firm and a representative of the firm accompanied Jain in several meetings.

The official also reportedly said Jain visited a school site on July 4, 2016, approved a sample model, and instructed changes in the scope of work. He alleged the richer specifications were implemented at Jain’s insistence. Another former senior PWD engineer, in a statement to ACB, said both Jain and Sisodia regularly inspected sites and approved changes.

ACB is now expected to evaluate contradictions in the testimonies as it investigates whether due process was bypassed and if political interference led to cost inflation in the high-profile classrooms project.