The Delhi Jal Board’s preparations to spray an anti-frothing agent in the Yamuna have triggered allegations of procurement irregularities after the Aam Aadmi Party claimed that equipment and labour were deployed at Kalindi Kunj before the tender was opened.
AAP Delhi president Saurabh Bharadwaj made the allegation on Wednesday, pointing to a contractor-installed setup at the Kalindi Kunj ghat. According to him, a container marked “Defoamer Stock”, pumps, chemical tanks and other equipment had already been brought to the site. He said the motors intended to be fitted on boats had also arrived.
Mr. Bharadwaj said the equipment and labour had been present at the location for two to three days. He further alleged that the person who installed the setup told the party that a DJB engineer had instructed them to begin work. The claims were presented by the AAP leader as evidence that preparations had begun even though the tender process had not yet opened.
“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 here,” Mr. Bharadwaj said. He questioned how the Delhi Jal Board could have identified the successful contractor before the tender was opened.
The anti-frothing, or defoaming, agent is sprayed in parts of the Yamuna where foam accumulates. The process is intended to address the visible frothing that has become a recurring feature of the river in Delhi, although the equipment described by the AAP is linked specifically to the spraying operation and does not by itself establish the cause of the pollution.
The allegation places procurement procedure at the centre of the latest Yamuna pollution controversy. A tender is intended to establish the terms of work and allow eligible bidders to compete before a contract is awarded. If equipment was installed before that process was completed, questions would arise about who authorised the preparations, whether the material belonged to a prospective contractor and how the work was being supervised.
The report did not include an immediate response from the Delhi BJP or a statement from the Delhi Jal Board addressing the allegations. It therefore remains unclear from the available information whether the equipment was formally authorised, whether a tender had been issued but not opened, or whether the setup was part of an earlier arrangement. The next clarification from the DJB or the Delhi government is expected to determine the status of the work and the procurement process.
