IT Exclusive
A Rs. 2.18-crore grant sanctioned by the National Mission on Libraries (NML), Ministry of Culture, Government of India, for upgrading the State Central Library, Imphal, has come under serious scrutiny following reported discrepancies in the utilisation of the funds and physical verification of works carried out under a scheme.
The NML sanctioned a non-recurring grant of Rs. 2,18,86,958 in February 2023 under its scheme for setting up an NML Model Library. The grant was intended for infrastructure upgradation, technology and modernisation of library services, creation of facilities for specially-abled groups, procurement of reading resources to meet local needs, and advocacy and outreach programmes.
The scheme guidelines require the sanctioned activities to be completed within the financial year from the date of sanction. The guidelines also make it clear that the grant cannot be diverted to another institution or used for purposes other than those specified in the approved proposal. In the event of failure to utilise the grant for the sanctioned purpose, the grantee is required to refund the entire amount.
Documents relating to the State Central Library, however, raise questions over whether the sanctioned activities were actually implemented in accordance with the approved proposal.
On July 18, 2025, the then Chief Librarian, Dr RK Urmila Devi, issued a utilisation certificate showing utilisation of Rs. 42.25 lakh. The certificate reportedly showed that, against the approved amount of Rs. 99,75,152 for infrastructure upgradation, Rs. 21 lakh had been released and reported as utilised.
Similarly, against an approved amount of Rs. 96,13,147 for technology upgradation, Rs. 22.75 lakh was reportedly released and shown as utilised. The certificate reportedly showed no utilisation against the approved Rs. 19,98,659 earmarked for reading resources, while only part of the amount approved for advocacy and outreach programmes was reportedly utilised.
More significantly, the utilisation statement appears to raise questions over the component specifically intended for specially-abled groups, with no corresponding infrastructure or facilities reportedly created under the component.
The issue becomes more serious because the utilisation certificate issued by the State Central Library was not accepted or approved by the National Mission on Libraries, according to information available in connection with the case.
A subsequent physical verification by an NML team reportedly detected several discrepancies relating to utilisation and implementation of the sanctioned activities. The team is also understood to have directed the newly appointed Chief Librarian to complete the pending activities under the scheme and submit the utilisation certificate.
The reported discrepancies assume greater significance in view of transactions amounting to Rs. 1,96,98,262 between October 16, 2023 and September 7, 2025, according to sources familiar with the financial records. The nature and purpose of these transactions, and their correspondence with the approved components of the NML grant, therefore require a thorough examination.
The ground situation at the State Central Library further raises questions about the expenditure claimed under the scheme.
Despite the persistent power supply problems affecting students, researchers and other library users, including frequent load shedding, the library reportedly procured a power backup generator at a cost of Rs. 7,82,744. Yet, concerns over uninterrupted power supply reportedly continue.
Similarly, although an amount of Rs. 42.72 lakh is reportedly shown as having been spent on computers and other electronic accessories, the library is still said to lack adequate computing and electronic facilities required by its users.
The condition of infrastructure inside the reading room has also reportedly remained unsatisfactory, raising a basic question: if substantial public funds were sanctioned and reportedly spent for infrastructure and technology upgradation, where are the corresponding improvements?
The issue is no longer merely about whether a utilisation certificate was submitted. It concerns whether public money sanctioned for a clearly defined purpose was actually converted into the facilities promised under the NML Model Library scheme.
If the NML’s physical verification has indeed identified discrepancies, the responsibility cannot simply be transferred to the present administration of the library. The government must establish, through records and an independent financial examination, who handled the funds, what was procured, from whom, at what cost, against which approved component, and whether the assets claimed on paper actually exist and are being used by the library.
The government also faces a more fundamental question: what action has been taken after the discrepancies were brought to its notice?
If the expenditure is found to be unsupported, irregular or unrelated to the sanctioned objectives, will the government recover the money from those responsible? If the sanctioned activities were not implemented despite the release of funds, who will be held accountable? And if the NML requires the grant to be refunded where it has not been utilised for the sanctioned purpose, who will bear the liability for such repayment?
Most importantly, will the government allow those responsible for any proven financial irregularity to walk away without accountability merely because the money was sanctioned under a Central scheme?
These are questions that cannot be answered by another utilisation certificate. They require a transparent verification of the entire expenditure, physical inspection of every asset reportedly procured, examination of procurement and payment records, and fixing of responsibility wherever violations are established.
A public library is not merely another government office. It is a public institution meant to serve students, researchers and citizens. The alleged discrepancies surrounding a grant intended to transform the State Central Library into an NML Model Library therefore demand more than administrative correspondence.
They demand accountability, recovery of any public money found to have been improperly utilised, and action against those found responsible after due inquiry.