Intend to allow feeding of pigeons for 2 hours in morning at Dadar Kabutarkhana: BMC to HC
Mumbai, Aug 13 (PTI): The city civic body on Wednesday told the Bombay High Court it intends to allow controlled feeding of pigeons for two hours each morning at the Dadar Kabutarkhana subject to conditions.
A bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Arif Doctor, however, stated that before granting any such permission, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has to first issue a public notice inviting objections and then take a decision on allowing controlled feeding of the birds at the popular site in Dadar.
Since the BMC's decision to close kabutarkhanas (pigeon feeding spots) in the city and prohibit feeding of pigeons was in larger interest of public health, the sanctity of the same has to be maintained, the court noted, while hearing a bunch of petitions.
Last week, tarpaulin sheets were placed at the Dadar Kabutarkhana, a popular pigeon feeding site, by the BMC to prevent people from offering grains to the birds, a move which had led to protest during which the covers were forcibly removed by agitators.
Pursuant to this, a few individuals submitted an application to the BMC seeking interim arrangements for controlled feeding of the pigeons.
On Wednesday, BMC counsel Ram Apte told the court the civic body intends to permit controlled feeding of the birds from 6 am to 8 am subject to certain conditions.
The bench then questioned if the civic body had first invited objections to the application (seeking nod for controlled pigeon feeding) before taking its decision.
"You (BMC) cannot just allow feeding now once you have already taken a closure decision keeping public health in mind. You will have to take a well considered decision," the HC observed.
Once an application is received, you need to issue a notice and invite objections from people and then take a decision. Once you have taken a decision keeping people's health in mind then you need to maintain that sanctity, the bench affirmed.
The Maharashtra government on Wednesday also submitted a list of 11 names to be part of a committee that would carry out a scientific study on the issue of pigeon feeding at public places and its impact on human health.
The court said the government shall notify the committee by August 20.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the state government, said the committee would comprise officials from state public health and town planning departments and medical experts.
The court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by people who regularly feed pigeons at kabutarkhanas. The petitioners have challenged the civic body's decision to ban such feedings and close down kabutarkhanas in the metropolis over potential health hazards from the exercise.
The high court had last month refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioners, but had asked the civic authorities not to demolish any heritage kabutarkhanas. The court had also said the BMC could take action as per law against those feeding pigeons at public places.
The Supreme Court had earlier this week refused to intervene in the HC order.
Senior counsel Anil Sakhare, appearing for the petitioners who have sought permission to offer grains to pigeons at the Dadar Kabutarkhana, said once the BMC takes a decision permitting controlled feeding, then they would move the HC seeking modification of the earlier order refusing interim relief.
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)
