Easy to call a disciplinarian autocrat: PM Modi
New Delhi, Sep 2 : Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday made a veiled attack on the Opposition, saying the one who calls for discipline was being branded an "autocrat" as he praised Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu for bringing "discipline" to the House.
Speaking at the launch of a book on the Vice President, Modi also said the disruptions in the Rajya Sabha enabled Naidu to display his administrative expertise as the Chairman.
"Naidu is a disciplinarian, but the situation in the country is such that it has become easy to call discipline undemocratic. If someone even tries to be a disciplinarian, he has to face the music. He is called an autocrat and they open the dictionary…," Modi said, after unveiling "Moving On... Moving Forward: A Year In Office" -- a book marking the completion of Naidu's one year as the Vice President and the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
"Naidu himself follows discipline which he preaches. Discipline is in his nature," said the Prime Minister praising the former BJP President's administrative expertise.
"If a House functions properly, then nobody pays attention to who is presiding. But when it does not function as per the norms, everybody focuses on the Chairperson; what that person's qualities are and how that person maintains discipline in the House.
"This year, people got the opportunity to witness how Naidu presides over the House. Had the House functioned properly this wouldn't have been possible," said Modi making a veiled attack on the opposition protests over various issues in Parliament.
Naidu's tenure as the Rajya Sabha Chairman has witnessed continuous disruptions especially by the opposition over a host of issues including Rafale fighter jet deal and lynching incidents.
Modi then went on to praise Naidu for his "diligence" to carry out the work that has been assigned to him.
"Whichever duty he had, he performed with utmost diligence and adapted into that role with ease. He always provides visionary leadership whenever he gets a responsibility. He gets the best experts to ensure justice is done to the work assigned," Modi said.
He also lauded Naidu for always being focused on the plight of farmers and the development of agriculture.
"Atalji wanted to give Venkaiah Naiduji a ministry. Venkaiahji said, 'I want to be the minister for rural development'. He is a farmer at heart. He is dedicated towards the welfare of farmers and agriculture."
The book release function saw former Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and H.D. Deve Gowda sharing the dais with Modi, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan.
Speaking on the occasion, Naidu also expressed his disappointment over the working of Parliament.
"I'm little unhappy that Parliament is not functioning as it should. On all other counts, things are moving, World Bank, ADB, World Economic Forum, whatever ratings they are giving is heartening. All Indians should be proud of whatever is happening on economic front," he said.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman sought cooperation from the Opposition to run the House smoothly.
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)
