Court seeks CBI response on Chidambaram's plea
New Delhi, Aug 28 : A court here on Tuesday directed the CBI to respond to former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's plea wherein he alleged that the agency is not interested in a fair trial in the Aircel-Maxis case as part of the charge sheet was leaked to the media.
Special Judge O.P. Saini asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file its response and listed the matter for October 8.
"The CBI has clandestinely provided a copy of the charge sheet to a newspaper which is publishing it in instalments to sensationalise the issue and prejudice the rights of the accused," Chidambaram said in his plea.
Chidambaram pleaded that the CBI wanted a media trial, which was causing grave prejudice to the rights of the accused. "The CBI is making a mockery of the judicial process, resulting in complete travesty of justice," the petitioner said.
Chidambaram, a senior Congress leader, his son Karti and others have been charge sheeted in the Aircel-Maxis case by the CBI which claims that he as the then Finance Minister had the power to approve foreign investments only up to Rs 600 crore but cleared the Rs 3,200-crore investment without referring the matter to the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs.
Chidambaram pointed out that the court had not taken cognisance of the charge sheet, and hence copies of the same have not been supplied to any of the accused.
He did not seek any particular direction but urged the court to pass any order as it deems fit in the interest of justice.
On Monday Chidambaram had maintained that he had approved the deal on the basis of a proposal from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).
"The CBI leaks its charge sheet to one newspaper because it wants a trial by the media. Fortunately, under our legal system, the trial can take place only in a court of law," Chidambaram had said on Twitter.
"It is the FIPB that decides if a proposal falls within the competence of the Finance Minister. The FIPB put up the proposal to me and I approved it along with 20 other proposals," he had added.
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)
