Asia Cup: Pakistan arrive for UAE game after day long drama; ICC rejects demand for Pycroft removal
Dubai (PTI): Pakistan was forced to climb down from its pullout threat and show up for a crucial Asia Cup game against the UAE here on Wednesday but not before causing a dramatic delay after the ICC's persistent rejection of its demand to remove match referee Andy Pycroft.
The team had earlier refused to leave its hotel for the must-win group match as Pycroft will officiate the game that will now start at 9pm IST instead of the original 8pm start.
Teams are required to report at the stadium two hours before the start of the game which Pakistan failed to do in protest.
That Pycroft would remain match referee was communicated to PCB chairman and Asian Cricket Council head Mohsin Naqvi by ICC CEO Sanjog Gupta in a conference call.
The ICC maintained that the Zimbabwean will remain in charge as he has followed the rules and regulations to the 'T'.
Pakistan had held Pycroft responsible for the embarrassment it faced after its captain Salman Ali Agha and India skipper Suryakumar did not exchange a handshake and their team sheets during the toss on Sunday.
The PCB said that Pycroft had told Salman to avoid a handshake with Suryakumar and told the two captains to not exchange team sheets.
The Indian players did not shake hands with the rivals even after the match as a mark of solidarity with the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack.
On Wednesday, once the Pakistan team didn't leave from the Grosvenor Hotel in Dubai, it was evident that the deadlock continued after the rejection of a second PCB complaint by the ICC.
Pycroft himself was present at the Dubai International Stadium and left the venue surrounded by bodyguards after he was called to the ICC Headquarters just a kilometer away from the ground.
The ICC gave a six-point rebuttal in which maintained that the PCB's complaints were baseless.
The ICC in its written communication stated: "The ICC's investigation was conducted on the basis of the information provided in the report lodged by the PCB. We took the report at Face value and note that no supporting documentation or evidence was provided with it.
"The PCB had every opportunity to submit statement from its team members alongside the initial report but chose not to do so."
The second point stated that there was "no case to answer" on the part of match referee.
"The actions that match referee took was, following clear directions to him from ACC (Asian Cricket Council) Venue Manager, were consistent with how a match referee will deal with such an issue, communicated as it was with no time for him to do anything else (minutes before the toss)."
The ICC in its third pointer was clear that Pycroft was committed to "preserving the sanctity of the toss and avoiding any potential embarrassment that might have arisen. "
"The Match Referee was not at fault in any of this."
"It is not the role of the Match Referee to regulate ay team or tournament specific protocols which have been agreed outside of the area of play, that is a matter for the tournament organizers and relevant team managers," the ICC added.
The conclusion was a terse one where the ICC brass wondered if "...the PCB's real concern or complain relates to the actual decision that handshakes didn't take place."
"The PCB should therefore direct those complaint to the tournament organiser and those who took the actual decision (which was not the Match Referee). The ICC doesn't have a role in that."
In a nutshell, ICC actually put the ball back in "ACC chairman" Mohsin Naqvi and Tournament Director Andy Russell's court.
The PCB can lose up to USD 16 million if they don't play the tournament. Naqvi took advice from two former PCB chairmen -- Ramiz Raja and Najam Sethi -- before deciding that the team would continue.
It is not known what transpired in that meeting but soon after Naqvi took to 'X' and announced.
"We have asked the Pakistan team to depart for the Dubai Cricket Stadium. Further details to follow." The team left the venue soon after that.
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)
