Axed CBI Chief Alok Verma Quits After Refusing to Join New Post, Says Natural Justice Was Scuttled
New Delhi, Jan 11: Former CBI director Alok Verma, ousted by a high powered committee, Friday asked the government to treat him "deemed superannuated" with immediate effect.
Refusing to take on his new assignment as Director General, Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards, Verma wrote to Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, stating the selection committee has not provided him an opportunity to explain the details as recorded by the CVC before arriving at the decision of transferring him.
Verma, a 1979-batch IPS officer from AGMUT cadre, was transferred from the position of CBI director to Director General, Fire Service, Civil Defence and Home Guards under the Home Ministry Thursday.
The move came after a high powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice A K Sikri and leader of Congress in Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge, in a split verdict, decided to transfer him 21 days ahead of the completion of his tenure.
"Natural justice was scuttled and the entire process was turned upside down in ensuring that the undersigned is removed from the post of the director CBI. The selection committee did not consider the fact that the entire CVC report is premised on charges alluded by a complainant who is presently under investigation by the CBI," Verma said in a veiled reference to Special Director Rakesh Asthana.
He said it may be noted that the CVC only forwarded a purportedly signed statement of the complainant (Asthana), and the complainant never came before Justice (Retd) A K Patnaik who is supervising the enquiry.
"Also, Justice Patnaik has concluded that the findings and conclusions of the report are not his," the 61-year-old said.
He said institutions are one of the strongest and most visible symbols of the democracy and it was no exaggeration that the CBI is one of the most important organisations in India today.
"The decisions made yesterday will not just be a reflection on my functioning but will become a testimony on how the CBI as an institution will be treated by any government through the CVC, who is appointed by majority members of the ruling government. This is a moment for collective introspection to state the least," he said.
The former Delhi police commissioner said he is a career bureaucrat and it is the idea of his integrity that has been the driving force for four decades in public service.
"I have served the Indian Police Service with an unblemished record and have headed police forces in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Puducherry, Mizoram, Delhi and also headed two organisations Delhi Prisons and CBI, he said.
Thanking officers of the organisations he headed and police officers, Verma said all these organisations reported outstanding achievements, having a direct bearing on the performance of the force and their welfare.
"Also, it may be noted that the undersigned would have already superannuated as on July 31, 2017 and was only serving the government as director, CBI till January 31, 2019 as the same was a fixed tenure role. The undersigned is no longer director, CBI and has already crossed his superannuation age for DG, Fire Services, Civil Defence and Home Guards. Accordingly. the undersigned may be deemed as superannuated with effect from today," he wrote.
Kharge, who has opposed his appointment as the CBI director in 2017, had not sided with the other two members of high powered panel in shifting him from the agency.
The Congress leader had instead asked for extending his tenure by 77 days, the period on which he was on forced leave besides advocating that Verma should be given a chance to appear before the committee and present his case.
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)
