LS polls: Richest candidate with assets worth Rs. 1,107 crore got 1,558 votes
New Delhi: It was a mixed outing for superrich candidates as five of them emerged victorious and an equal number suffered defeat in the Lok Sabha polls.
However, the country's richest candidate Ramesh Kumar Sharma, who fought independently from Bihar, lost his deposit, according to Election Commission data.
Among 10 top richest contestants in the country, three were from Andhra Pradesh, two each from Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, and one each from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Telangana.
Prominent winners include Congress' Nakul Nath, son of Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath, while Jyotiraditya Scindia was among big losers, as per the EC data.
The country's richest candidate Ramesh Kumar Sharma, who fought as an independent from Patliputra parliamentary seat in Bihar, lost his deposit as he secured only 1,556 votes. Sharma had declared a net asset of Rs 1,107 crore in his nomination papers.
Congress' Uday Singh, the country's seventh richest candidate, lost with a huge margin of 2,63,461 votes from Purnia parliamentary seat in Bihar. He had a declared net asset of Rs 341 crore.
Among other losers, Congress' Konda Vishweshwar Reddy gave a tough fight for re-election from Chevella Lok Sabha constituency in Telangana, but lost to Telangana Rashtra Samithi's (TRS) candidate G Ranjith Reddy by a margin of 14,317 votes.
Vishweshwar, son-in-law of the Apollo Group chairman C Pratap Reddy, was the country's second richest candidate with total asset of over Rs 895 crore. He switched over to Congress from TRS in last December.
Another Congress candidate who lost terribly was Jyotiraditya Scindia, who was also the party election in charge for western Uttar Pradesh.
Scindia, the country's fifth richest candidate with a net asset of Rs 374 crore, lost by a huge margin of 1,25,549 votes from Guna parliamentary seat to his rival BJP candidate Krishna Pal Singh.
Industrialist Prasad Veera Potluri who contested on a YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) ticket lost by 8,726 votes from Vijayawada parliamentary constituency in Andhra Pradesh to his rival Telugu Desam Party (TDP) candidate Kerineni Srinivas.
Poluri, the country's sixth richest candidate with a net asset of Rs 347 crore, joined YSRCP this year. He is also the owner of the Hyderabad Hotshots, one of the six franchises of Indian Badminton League.
Among winners, Congress' Nakul Nath -- the country's third richest candidate with a declared net asset of over Rs 660 crore -- won by 37,536 votes from Chhindwara Lok Sabha constituency in Madhya Pradesh.
Another from Congress Vasanthakumar H, the country's fourth richest candidate with a net asset of Rs 417 crore, won by a huge margin of 2,59,933 votes. He defeated BJP's Pon RadhaKrishan, who is minister of state for finance and shipping at the Centre.
Congress' D K Suresh also won with a huge margin of 2,06,870 votes from Bengaluru rural in Karnataka. Suresh had declared a net asset of Rs 338 crore and was the country's eighth wealthiest contestant in the 2019 Lok Sabha election.
Andhra Pradesh' two richest candidates Kanumuru Raghurama Krishna Raja and Jayadeva Galla have won the parliamentary election this time.
Raja, an industrialist from West Godavari district is the country's ninth richest contestant, and won by a margin of 31,909 votes from Nasapuram seat in the state. He has declared a net asset of Rs 325 crore.
Raja remained in the BJP till 2018. Last year, he joined the TDP but switched over to YSRCP this year.
Galla, an industrialist and owner of Amara Raja Batteries, gave tough fight for re-election from the Guntur parliamentary constituency. He won by 4,205 votes.
He was the country's tenth wealthiest candidate in the polls with a declared net asset of over Rs 305 crore.
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)
