CBI faces flak over unprofessional wanted ad: ‘Ball’ instead of ‘bail’, unclear photos raise eyebrow
New Delhi: India’s premier investigative agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is under criticism after the release of a public advertisement seeking information about three wanted accused in a counterfeiting case. Far from serving its purpose, the ad has sparked ridicule and concern over the agency’s professionalism.
The CBI ad, intended to appeal to the public for information about three Nigerian nationals, Dosunmu Oluwatosin Abimbola, Sanni Aminat Olajumoke, and Adenowo Adekunle Azeez, has been criticised for glaring errors and poor execution.
Journalist Sanket Upadhyay, speaking on his YouTube channel Red Mike, slammed the ad, questioning who drafts such notices. Pointing to the hazy images of the accused, he remarked that “to get the reward, people should at least be able to see the image,” and sarcastically described the visuals as resembling a “seventh-time photocopy.”
The most glaring mistake? The word “bail” is repeatedly misspelled as “ball.” The ad reads: “On being granted ball, they have jumped the ball, absconded…”, a language slip that has not gone unnoticed, with social media users mocking the agency for its linguistic negligence.
In addition to the spelling error, the photographs of the accused included in the ad have been called out for being “beyond recognition.” Blurry, pixelated and unclear, the images fail to serve the very function of helping identify the accused, prompting users to ask, “Is this a CBI Ad or a joke?”
The ad mentions that each accused carries a reward of ₹50,000 for information leading to their arrest. The three individuals are accused in a 2009 case registered by the CBI’s Economic Offences Unit (RC SIB 2009 E0003, EOU-V, New Delhi) under sections 120-B, 489-A, and 489-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to the CBI, they were granted bail but subsequently absconded and have been declared proclaimed offenders by a Delhi court.
While the agency is urging the public to share any leads, critics say the CBI must first ensure its outreach materials are accurate, clear, and professional.
The CBI has not yet issued any clarification or correction regarding the ad.
Contact information listed in the ad:
Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOU-V, 4th Floor, Plot 5-B, Opp. Electronics Niketan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003
Telefax: 011-24362132
Email: speou5del@cbl.gov.in (misspelt in original ad)
CBI Control Room: 011-24360334, 24362755, 24361273
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)
