ASI order over performing rituals in temples in Devgiri Fort sparks row
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Jun 27: An Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) order discouraging performing pooja in temples located in the Devgiri (Daulatabad) Fort complex in Maharashtra's Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district has drawn criticism from different quarters, including the opposition Shiv Sena (UBT).
According to the order, performing pooja or any other rituals in these temples of the centuries-old fortified citadel protected by the ASI will be a breach of law.
As per the June 4 order which surfaced on social media platforms on Thursday, priest of Bharat Mata Temple located on the fort's foothills, Raju Kanjune, has been stopped from performing rituals.
Being a non-living monument, permitting rituals in any of the temples located in the fort's premises will be a breach of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, according to the ASI which functions under the Union Ministry of Culture.
Two other Hindu shrines -- Sankat Vinayak Ganesh Temple and Janardan Swami Temple -- are located top the fort.
The ASI order has sparked a controversy with Leader of Opposition in Maharashtra Legislative Council Ambadas Danve of the Shiv Sena (UBT) and Maratha quota activist Vinod Patil questioning the move.
When contacted, a senior ASI official told PTI, "The Devgiri Fort is a non-living monument and there is no permission for performing pooja here. No priest can perform rituals, but tourists can visit the fort freely."
Danve, in a post on X, said pooja is being performed in Bharat Mata Temple, Sankat Vinayak Ganesh Temple and Janardan Swami Temple for years and long before the fort came under the ASI jurisdiction.
"Then how is the fort a non-living monument?" he questioned.
He sought to know if the central government will impose restrictions on Ganesh Temple, where yearly provision of rituals was made during Peshwas (medieval-era ministers of Maratha empire), and 'dindi' (procession) that comes to Janardan Swami Temple every year in 'Margashirsh' (ninth month of Hindu calendar).
The Shiv Sena (UBT) leader also sought to know if the same kind of curbs will be imposed on the tomb of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb located in Khultabad in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district.
Maratha quota activist Patil said, "Bharat Mata Temple was established by freedom fighters after the region was freed from Nizam and pooja is being done here since 1948. There are many ASI sites where a holiday is declared for the sake of a specific religion. The state government should intervene and resolve the issue."
Co-convener of INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) Swapnil Joshi said "Bharat Mata is being worshipped in the Devgiri Fort prior to independence. So the entire fort cannot be a non-living monument. Deities here are being worshipped much before the ASI came into existence.
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)
