Bhatkal: Are BJP leaders ‘Unidentified’? FIR skips notable protestors, names only foot soldiers
Two FIRs registered in Sangh Parivar’s protests against SP M Narayan
Bhatkal, April 12: In a development that has sparked serious questions about fairness and transparency in law enforcement, two FIRs registered at the Bhatkal Town Police Station in connection with the recent Sangh Parivar-led protests have conspicuously excluded the names of prominent BJP and Hindutva leaders who were very much present and leading the demonstrations.
On April 8 and 9, members of various right-wing groups staged aggressive protests in Bhatkal—first by blocking the National Highway 66 and later by gathering in front of the police station—after reports surfaced alleging that Uttara Kannada Superintendent of Police (SP) M. Narayan had manhandled Sangh activist Srinivas Naik during a rowdy-sheeter parade in Sirsi.
However, what stands out in the FIRs is not who is named—but who isn’t.
Despite photographic and video evidence clearly showing the presence of several senior leaders—including former Bhatkal MLA and BJP face Sunil Naik, former Bhatkal BJP President Govinda Naik, and known Hindutva leader and BJP's District Secretary Srikanth—the police have failed to mention their names. Instead, the FIRs include a list of lesser-known workers and dozens of conveniently labeled “unidentified individuals.”
This raises a very serious question: When top BJP and Sangh Parivar leaders are visibly leading the protest, how can they be passed off as ‘unidentified’?
Are the police, under pressure or willingly, shielding political figures with influence and clout? Are the law enforcement officers deliberately omitting the names of powerful individuals to avoid backlash or political consequences?
According to the FIR registered by PSI Naveen S. Naik, 11 names have been mentioned—none of whom are leading figures. The second FIR, filed by PSI Timmappa Bedumane, carries a similar pattern. Known leaders who are seen raising slogans and standing at the front lines of the protest are nowhere in the official records. Yet, the police have written off at least 60 protesters across both FIRs as “unidentified.”
When the police claim that they are scrutinizing CCTV footage and videos to identify protestors, one must ask—how do they manage to skip over the most visible faces leading the protest? These individuals are no strangers. They are seasoned politicians and activists who frequently appear in public forums and media.
Is this selective amnesia or selective protection?
At a time when the police are expected to act impartially and uphold the rule of law, such omissions dent public trust and raise doubts about the neutrality of those entrusted with enforcing the law.
Justice cannot and should not be divided between the powerful and the powerless. If FIRs can be drawn up against common workers, then the leaders guiding them must also be held accountable. The law must not just act—it must be seen to be acting without fear or favour.
If prominent faces are still being labeled as “unidentified,” then it is not just a failure of policing—it is a failure of honesty.
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)
