Lokpal search committee constituted
Former Supreme Court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai to chair meetings
New Delhi, Sept 27: The committee, formed despite concerns raised by the Congress, has former chief of SBI Arundhati Bhattacharya, Prasar Bharati chairperson A Surya Prakash and ISRO head A S Kiran Kumar as members.
Ignoring concerns raised by the Congress, the Narendra Modi government Thursday constituted an eight-member search committee to recommend the chairperson and members of the anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal. The search committee will be headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
The committee has former chief of State Bank of India (SBI) Arundhati Bhattacharya, Prasar Bharati chairperson A Surya Prakash and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) head A S Kiran Kumar as members.
Besides them, Justice Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, former judge of Allahabad High Court; Shabbir Hussain S Khandwawala, former Gujarat Police head; Lalit K Panwar, retired IAS officer of Rajasthan cadre; and former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar are the other members of the panel, according to an official order issued by the Personnel Ministry.
“The process of Lokpal selection is going as per the guidelines laid down in the Lokpal Act,” Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh told PTI.
The move assumes significance as the government decided to go ahead with the formation of the search committee despite Congress leader in Lok Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, boycotting meetings of the Lokpal selection panel, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a senior government official said.
“The search committee is a major step towards setting up of the Lokpal. The committee will start its functioning soon,” he said.
The decision to constitute the search committee comes four years after the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, which envisages establishment of anti-graft body Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in states to look into cases of corruption against certain categories of public servants, was passed in 2013.
Kharge had been boycotting the selection committee meeting on the pretext that he is not made a full-fledged member in the panel.
He had rejected the invitation extended to him to attend the meetings of the selection committee held this year on six occasions– March 1, April 10, July 19, August 21, September 4 and September 19 — as a “special invitee”.
The eight-member search committee is mandated to recommend a panel of names for the appointment of the Lokpal and its members.
Kharge had earlier urged the government to amend the Lokpal Act to include the leader of the single largest opposition party in Lok Sabha in the selection committee and bring an ordinance in this regard.
As per the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, only the leader of the opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha is a member of the selection committee and since, Kharge does not have that status, he is not a part of the panel.
A party should have at least 55 seats or 10 per cent of the strength of the Lok Sabha for its leader to get the LoP status.
The Congress is the single largest opposition party in the Lower House but its leader could not be given the LoP status as it does not have the requisite number to qualify for it, the official said.
The Lokpal selection committee headed by the prime minister has as its members the Lok Sabha speaker, leader of the opposition in the lower house, the chief justice of India or a judge of the apex court nominated by him, and an eminent jurist who could be nominated by the president or any other member.
Upon the recommendations of the selection committee in its meeting held on April 10, President Ram Nath Kovind had nominated Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General of India as ’eminent jurist’ member of the panel against the vacancy arising following the death of senior advocate P P Rao.
with PTI inputs
Courtesy: indianexpress.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)
