Accused In Gauri Lankesh Case Conspired Dabholkar Murder Too: CBI
PUNE: Three accused in journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case were conspirators in the Narendra Dabholkar murder too, and one of them imparted weapon-training to Dabholkar's shooters, the CBI told a court here Saturday.
The Central Bureau of Investigation arrested Sachin Andure, one of the alleged shooters of Dabholkar, last month.
The agency on Saturday produced Rajesh Bangera and Amit Digvekar, both accused in the Lankesh murder case, along with Andure in the Pune court. Andure's CBI remand ended on Saturday.
The court sent Digvekar and Bangera in CBI custody till September 10, while Andure was sent in judicial custody.
Claiming that there was a link between the accused in the two cases, the CBI on Friday took the custody of Bangera and Digvekar from the Karnataka Special Investigation Team which is probing the Lankesh murder.
"Bangera, a government employee and PA to a Congress MLC in Karnataka, gave weapon-training to both the shooters, Andure and (Sharad) Kalaskar, who killed Dr Dabholkar," CBI lawyer Vijaykumar Dhakane told the court here.
Bangera was also involved in the conspiracy of Dr Dabholkar's murder, and CBI needs to interrogate him to find out where he imparted training, the source of fire arms, and "present whereabouts of the fire arms", the prosecutor said.
As to Digvekar, the CBI lawyer said he had helped Andure to do a reconnaissance of Dabholkar's house and the routes that the anti-superstition activist usually took.
"Digvekar lived in a Goa-based Ashram for over 15 years and was associated with Dr Virendra Tawde, one of the key conspirators in Dabholkar case. Digvekar is one of the co-conspirators in Dabholkar murder case as entire conspiracy was hatched by Dr Tawde along with Digvekar and this conspiracy needs to be unearthed," said the CBI lawyer.
Defence lawyer Samir Patwardhan pointed out from the CBI's charge sheet against Tawde that the agency had earlier claimed that Sarang Akolkar and Vinay Pawar had shot Dabholkar, and now it has come out with a different version.
After hearing both the sides, Judicial Magistrate (First Class) R R Bhalgat remanded Bangera and Digvekar in CBI custody till September 10 and sent Andure in judicial remand.
The CBI could not take the custody of Amol Kale, a third accused in Lankesh case who it says is one of the main conspirators in Dabholkar case too, due to some technicalities, its lawyer said.
Sharad Kalaskar, the second alleged shooter who fired on Dabholkar, is in the custody of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad in an explosives seizure case.
Dabholkar was shot dead in Pune on August 20, 2013, while Gauri Lankesh was murdered in Bengaluru on September 5, 2017.
courtesy : ndtv.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
