MP Shobha makes false claim that 2 lakh toilets were constructed in her constituency in 5 years
Government statistics tell a different story
Chikmagalur: Government records have rubbished MP Shobha Karandlaje's claim that under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, 2 lakh toilets were built in her constituency in the span of five years.
Praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, MP Shobha Karandlaje had recently tweeted, "2 lakh toilets have been built in the constituency under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan in the last five years".
What is the reality?
Shobha tweeted: "#SwacchBharat is not just about cleanliness, but it is also a matter of pride for our women" Along with this, she posted a campaigning video saying, "70Years of Independence, it took this one man to respond! In Udupi-Chikmagalur only more than 2L toilets have been built. #ThankYou PM @narendramodi ji for this wonderful initiative!".
But, government statistics tell a different story.
Udupi
Udupi district was declared as the "Open Defecation Free District" in 2017. The official records of Udupi Zilla Panchayat have revealed that only 28,636 toilets were constructed in the district between 2013 and 2017. In Udupi, Kundapura, and Karkala taluks, there were 7685, 16262 and 4689 toilets required, respectively (according to the 2012 survey). In 2013-14, 3378, 5611 and 1680 toilets were constructed, respectively. The construction of 2777, 7393 and 1991 toilets was completed in 2014-15. Similarly, 1368, 2953 and 775 toilets were built in 2015-16, whereas 162, 305 and 243 toilets were constructed in 2016-17.
In all, the number of toilets built during this period was 28,636. (Brahmavara, Kapu, Byndoor and Hebri Taluks were announced on January 1, 2018).
Chikmagalur:
According to the records available at the Chikkamagaluru ZP office, only 69,418 toilets were constructed in Chikkamagaluru district from 2012 to 2018. What we need to note here is 'from 2012'. For this, Rs 7,192.71 lakh has been spent under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan.
According to Baseline Survey, after 2018, 6,615 families in Chikkamagaluru district were left out of the toilet facility. Of these, only 493 toilets were constructed between 2018 and March 2019, for which the fund of Rs 7.41 lakh has been used. 6,122 toilets are yet to be built in the district.
Nirmal Bharat-Swachh Bharat
ZP officials informed that the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan was not implemented in 2012. Nirmala Bharat campaign was then in existence. Only, the name was changed to 'Swachh Bharat Abhiyan' for the same project. A total of 69,418 toilets were constructed in the district from 2012 to 2018 in the same fund.
This is not for the first time!
This is not the first time that MP Shobha Karandlaje is manipulating the information. Shobha Karandlaje had written a letter to the Union Home Minister demanding an NIA probe into the murders of Hindu / Sangh Parivar activists in the state. However, one man in Shobha's list of dead people was alive and employed while suicide and accident were the reason behind the death of some other people who were mentioned in the list.
Vartha Bharati has first exposed the reality behind the letter written by Shobha. Later she expressed regret for the same.
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_28.jpeg)
