Attempts made to delete nearly 80,000 Muslim voters in Bihar’s Dhaka constituency
reveals investigative report
Patna: Nearly 80,000 Muslim voters in Bihar’s Dhaka constituency were targeted for deletion from the electoral roll through formal submissions made in the name of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) functionaries, according to an exclusive investigation by The Reporters’ Collective.
The investigation found that written requests for mass deletions were submitted to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) in East Champaran district and to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Bihar. One such petition was filed in the name of the personal assistant of Dhaka’s BJP MLA Pawan Kumar Jaiswal, while another was submitted on the BJP’s state headquarters letterhead in Patna.
The petitions alleged that over 78,000 Muslim voters were “not Indian citizens” and sought their removal from the voter list. However, the ERO acknowledged receiving the submissions and said bulk deletion requests would not be entertained, though the names were marked for verification during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
Local residents expressed deep anxiety after learning that their names appeared in the BJP-backed complaints. Among those listed was Firoz Alam, sarpanch of Fulwaria Gram Panchayat, who said his entire family had been wrongly accused of being non-citizens. Teachers, booth-level officers, and even newly registered young voters were also among those named.
The sitting BJP MLA, Pawan Jaiswal, did not respond directly to the revelations. Instead, he accused the opposition Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of attempting to delete 40,000 Hindu voters, though he declined to provide proof.
Dhaka constituency, bordering Nepal, has a history of close contests. In 2020, Jaiswal defeated RJD’s Faisal Rahman by just over 10,000 votes out of more than two lakh polled. Given this margin, even a few thousand deletions could significantly alter the electoral outcome.
The Reporters’ Collective noted that such mass targeting of one community is unprecedented, though smaller-scale voter list manipulations have long been alleged in Bihar. Critics say the controversial SIR process, conducted in haste and confusion, has created opportunities for political interference and disenfranchisement of minorities.
The final electoral roll for Dhaka will be released on October 1, which will determine the fate of the nearly 80,000 Muslim voters whose citizenship has been questioned.
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)
