Congress revives Haren Pandya murder case as Sunita Williams returns to Earth
_vb_84.jpeg)
New Delhi: The Congress has brought back the Haren Pandya murder case into political discourse as NASA astronaut Sunita Williams, Pandya’s cousin, returns to Earth. The party has questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sincerity in celebrating Williams' achievements, contrasting it with his alleged past indifference towards her due to her family ties with Pandya, a former Gujarat BJP minister assassinated in 2003.
The Congress Kerala unit posted on social media: "Modi pens a letter to Sunita Williams, and in all likelihood, she will put it in the trash. Why? She is Haren Pandya's cousin… He challenged Modi and was murdered during a 'morning walk'." The statement has reignited discussions about the case and its political implications.
Haren Pandya’s political rift with Modi
Pandya, a former Gujarat home minister, was a prominent BJP leader known for his RSS background. Tensions between him and Modi escalated in 2001 when he refused to vacate his Ellisbridge Assembly seat for Modi’s electoral entry into the Gujarat Legislative Assembly.
The rift deepened in 2002 when Pandya allegedly testified before an independent panel, led by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, about Modi’s role in the Gujarat riots. Some reports claimed Pandya accused Modi of instructing officials to allow retaliatory violence after the Godhra train burning. Following this, Pandya was removed from his ministerial post, denied an election ticket, and later found dead on 26 March 2003 during his morning walk in Ahmedabad.
Controversial investigation and legal battles
The CBI initially linked Pandya’s murder to Islamic militants, claiming it was an act of revenge for the 2002 riots. In 2007, a Gujarat trial court convicted 12 individuals, but the Gujarat High Court overturned the convictions in 2011, calling the investigation “botched, misdirected, and perverse.” The Supreme Court reinstated the convictions in 2019, rejecting demands for a fresh probe. Pandya’s father, Vitthal Pandya, had repeatedly accused Modi of shielding the real culprits.
Sunita Williams and Modi’s selective recognition
Congress has also highlighted the BJP government’s past indifference towards Sunita Williams. Reports from The Telegraph in 2007 noted that despite her achievements and Gujarati heritage, Modi’s administration ignored her accomplishments. Williams had previously campaigned for Pandya in 1998 and joined his victory procession.
In contrast, Modi has now praised Williams in a personal letter, calling her one of India’s illustrious daughters. Congress alleges that this shift is politically motivated. While the BJP has dismissed these claims, the Haren Pandya case continues to be a point of contention in Modi’s political legacy.
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)
