Plea about 'threat' to Rahul Gandhi filed without his consent, to be withdrawn: Lawyer
Pune, Aug 13 (PTI): Hours after filing a plea in a court here claiming apprehension of threat to Rahul Gandhi from the followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Congress leader's lawyer on Wednesday said it was filed without Gandhi's consent, and would be withdrawn.
He will submit another application on Thursday to withdraw the `Pursis' or the application filed before Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Amol Shinde, said Advocate Milind Pawar.
Pawar is representing Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, grand-nephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, over certain statements made by the Congress leader against the late freedom fighter and Hindutva ideologue.
He drafted the application without consulting Gandhi and the latter has taken a "strong exception to the filing of this Pursis and expressed his disagreement with its contents", the lawyer said in a press release late in the evening.
The application filed by advocate Pawar earlier in the day said that complainant Satyaki Savarkar had admitted that he is also a direct descendant, through maternal lineage, of Nathuram Godse and Gopal Godse, principal accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi is the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and recently held a press conference in Delhi, placing before the nation evidence of electoral fraud by the Election Commission, the application said.
"Furthermore, during the parliamentary debate on the subject of Hindutva, there was a heated exchange between the Prime Minister and Shri Rahul Gandhi, a matter well known to the public. Against this backdrop, there is little doubt that the complainant, his great-grandfathers (the Godses), those connected with the ideology of Vinayak Savarkar, and some followers of Savarkar who are presently in power, may harbor hostility or resentment towards Gandhi," the application said.
"In light of the documented history of violent and anti-constitutional tendencies linked to the complainant's lineage, and considering the prevailing political climate, there exists a clear, reasonable, and substantial apprehension that Rahul Gandhi may face harm, wrongful implication, or other forms of targeting by persons subscribing to the ideology of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar," the application stated.
The Pune court has already granted bail to Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case. The trial is yet to begin.
Reacting to the development, Advocate Sangram Kolhatkar, Satyaki Savarkar's lawyer, asked why the application was filed in the first place. "This is nothing but an attempt to delay the trial by moving such frivolous pleas," he said.
Satyaki Savarkar has filed a defamation complaint against Rahul Gandhi, alleging that in a speech made in London in March 2023, the Congress leader claimed that V D Savarkar had written in a book that he and five to six of his friends once beat up a Muslim man and he (Savarkar) felt happy.
No such incident ever took place, and V D Savarkar never wrote any such thing anywhere, the complaint claimed.
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)
