"Was In London": Rakesh Asthana on middleman's claim of meeting in Delhi
NEW DELHI: Rakesh Asthana, the CBI's number two officer who has been accused of accepting bribe by his boss Alok Verma, has pointed out that he was in London during the entire period when the alleged negotiation with a Hyderabad-based businessman and the exchange of money through middlemen took place, NDTV has learnt. Mr Asthana has also dismissed the claim that the middleman met him at his office Delhi around the same time.
The infighting between the top two of the country's main investigating agency escalated when the CBI filed a First Information Report against Mr Asthana.
Mr Asthana then wrote to the Chief Vigilance Commission, the top anti-corruption watchdog, that it was in fact CBI chief Alok Verma who had taken bribe from the businessman being investigated by the agency.
Both were sent on compulsory leave by the centre last month and a probe into corruption allegations against the two was initiated by the Chief Vigilance Commission.
Sources close to the investigation have told NDTV that key witness Sana Sathish Babu, who both the top two officers alleged had bribed the other, has stuck to his statement against CBI special director Rakesh Asthana.
According to the First Information Report or FIR, Sana Sathish Babu had reportedly paid Rs. 3 crore, through two middlemen -- brothers Somesh and Manoj Prasad, as bribe to a CBI officer to get relief from questioning in a money laundering case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi.
Mr Asthana has informed Chief Vigilance Commissioner KV Chowdary that between December 2 and December 13, 2017, when the bribe was allegedly paid according to Satish Sana's statement, Rakesh Asthana was in London for hearings related to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya.
News reports confirm that Mr Asthana left Delhi on December 3 and stayed in London till at least December 15.
According to Sana Sathish Babu's statement, he went to Dubai on December 2 last year and met brothers Somesh and Manoj Prasad.
They reportedly showed him a WhatsApp photograph of the officer and made him speak to him. The person on the other side assured the businessman won't be questioned in the Moin Qureshi case if he paid Rs. 5 crore. Later, when Mr Babu looked him up on the internet, he realised he spoke to Rakesh Asthana, his statement added.
Mr Babu alleged that a part of the bribe, 1 crore, was paid in Dubai and then Rs. 1.95 crore on December 13 at Delhi's Press Club.
Mr Babu also claimed that on December 15 or 16 -- when Rakesh Asthana was recorded to be in London -- Somesh Prasad met the CBI officer at his office in Delhi and made him hear a confirmation from Mr Asthana about his case.
The alleged meeting has been presented by Alok Verma's team as evidence against Rakesh Asthana.
The two-week period assigned by the Supreme Court to the Central Vigilance Commission to complete its inquiry ends on Sunday. The top court will hear the case on Monday.
courtesy : ndtv.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)
