New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh has raised questions over the Haj 2027 Comprehensive Service Package tender, alleging irregularities in the selection of a service provider and prompting the Centre to defend the process.
In a post on X on Thursday, August 27, Singh, referring to a Hindi news report shared last year, alleged, “After looting the temple of Lord Shri Ram, now Haj pilgrims will also be looted.” He then questioned the relationship between Ithraa Al Khair and the Modi government, alleging that the company had been awarded the contract last year as well and imposed an additional burden of Rs 6,000 per Haj pilgrim.
Singh claimed the decision would impose an additional financial burden of more than Rs 30,000 on each Haj pilgrim. He also alleged that the same company had received the contract previously, resulting in an additional cost of Rs 6,000 per pilgrim.
He further questioned why the contract was allegedly awarded to an L3 bidder despite what he said was a recommendation by the technical committee, and raised allegations of corruption.
Journalist and columnist Saiyed Zegham Murtaza separately raised similar concerns about the Haj 2027 package tender. In posts on X on Thursday, Murtaza alleged that Mashareq Al Mutamayizah had qualified as the L1 bidder under the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) process, with a quoted rate of SAR 8,717.01 per pilgrim, while Ithraa Al Khair was awarded the contract at a quoted rate of SAR 9,777.
Murtaza claimed the difference would result in an additional burden on around 1.22 lakh Indian Haj pilgrims, estimating the overall extra cost at more than Rs 300 crore. He also raised questions over the repeated selection of Ithraa Al Khair and alleged irregularities in the tender process.
Responding to the allegations, the Ministry of Minority Affairs (MoMA) on Friday, August 28, said it had taken note of reports and claims questioning the selection of the Service Provider Company for Haj 2027.
The ministry said the selection had been carried out through a “prescribed and structured tendering process” in accordance with applicable tender conditions and procurement procedures.
It said bids from eligible entities were subjected to due scrutiny and evaluation by designated authorities and committees on parameters set out in the tender document. The selection, it added, was based on the overall evaluation of the bids under the approved methodology and was not influenced by extraneous considerations.
Given the scale and importance of Haj operations, the ministry said the competent authorities had also considered factors including quality, capacity, operational preparedness and financial aspects relevant to delivering services to Indian pilgrims.
The matter, it said, had been processed at the appropriate levels and remained subject to the prescribed approval and procurement framework. Necessary safeguards were being followed to protect the interests of Indian pilgrims and ensure that services during Haj 2027 meet the required standards.
Rejecting allegations of wrongdoing, the ministry said it remained committed to transparency, fairness and accountability and categorically denied that the selection process had been influenced by considerations other than the prescribed evaluation and procurement procedure.
The ministry’s statement did not name any company or directly address the specific claims made by Singh and Murtaza regarding the bidding, ranking and quoted rates.
Following the ministry’s statement, Singh on Friday said the clarification had not addressed his concerns. He questioned whether it was merely a coincidence that the same company had received the contract for four consecutive years and asked why another company was allegedly recommended by the technical committee if the contract was eventually awarded elsewhere.
He also reiterated his allegation that the decision would increase the financial burden on pilgrims, asking why Hajis should have to pay the additional amount.
Murtaza, meanwhile, said the ministry’s assertion of a transparent tender process did not answer several questions raised over the selection. He questioned why the same company had continued to receive the contract for four consecutive years and whether its services during previous Haj seasons had been satisfactory.
He also questioned the decision to award the contract to Ithraa Al Khair despite his claim that Mashareq Al Mutamayizah had emerged as the L1 bidder under QCBS with a lower quoted rate and a higher score. Murtaza further asked why, if a technical committee had recommended another company, the contract was awarded to Ithraa Al Khair.
Murtaza also questioned why the additional cost, as alleged by him, should be borne by Haj pilgrims. He called for continued scrutiny of the matter and urged an investigation into the allegations surrounding the tender process.
