All will work for Tejasvi Surya's victory in Bangalore South: Yeddyurappa
Bengaluru, Mar 27: Amid resentment within the Karnataka BJP on selection of candidates for the Bangalore South Lok Sabha seat, state unit chief B S Yeddyurappa Wednesday said party nominee Tejasvi Surya would win and every one will work towards it.
In a surprise move, the BJP has fielded party's youth wing leader Surya from its bastion of Bangalore South from where the widow of union minister Ananth Kumar, a six-time MP from the constituency, was denied the ticket.
However, V Somanna, a party MLA from Govindraj Nagar that falls under Bangalore South, has demanded clarity on how Tejaswini missed the ticket, from Basavanagudi MLA Ravi Subramanya, who is Tejasvi Surya's uncle.
"Lot of discussion has happened on this already, it is Delhi's (party high command) decision, everyone has accepted it and have begun their work. Tejasvi will hundred per cent win.
Tejaswini has also expressed her support, there is no need to discuss about it again," Yeddyurappa told reporters when questioned about Tejaswini not getting tickets.
Ending the suspense with just hours left for the deadline for filing of nominations for the first phase of polls in Karnataka, the BJP central leadership had announced the name of 28-year-old Surya, a lawyer.
The BJP's Karnataka unit had proposed only Tejaswini Ananth Kumar's name as candidate from Bangalore South.
Tejaswini was confident about fighting the poll on BJP ticket and had been preparing for it and had started a door-to-door campaign.
Tejasvi filed his nomination on Tuesday, even as Tejaswini's supporters protested his candidacy.
He filed his papers in the absence of several senior BJP MLAs from the constituency including R Ashoka and Somanna.
Terming Tejswini not getting ticket as "unfortunate" and that it should not have happened, Somanna blamed Ravi Subramanya for the "episode", and demanded clarity on what really happened, before involving himself in party work, including campaigning.
He said he along with party legislators and leaders from Bangalore South, including former Deputy Chief Minister R Ashoka had unanimously proposed her name as candidate, which the state unit also had consented.
"What happened, why it happened is also a big question to me. When Ravi Subramanya called me, I have asked for clarity on what really happened."
Speaking to reporters after meeting with Tejaswini Ananth Kumar at her residence, Somanna, claiming to be loyal soldiers of the party, said "If one is taken for granted, it will be difficult as our future is also involved.
"This has happened, it should not have happened, why it happened we have to know at least in between four walls.
As Ravi Subramanya is at its forefront, I have told him, let's discuss it. Once the discussion happens we will also be relieved to perform our duties."
He said there was no problem in going for campaigning, but they wanted clarity, adding, he could not do something, while keeping something else in mind.
"Let's discuss this with high command, let this happen to no one else," he said while pointing that he came to BJP under Ananth Kumar and Yeddyurappa.
Another senior BJP legislator Umesh Katti also expressed displeasure about Tejaswini not getting ticket.
"Ananth Kumar built and nurtured the party for the last 40 years and he had given tickets to several people, when he is not there there is discussion about not giving ticket to his family.
I feel that in the days to come party will have something good for them," he said.
Tejaswini, however, has insisted that she remained loyal to the party and she accepted the decision to ensure Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister again.
Bangalore South will go to polls on April 18.
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)
