Delhi Assembly passes resolution against Asthana's appointment; Kejriwal says move against SC order
New Delhi, Jul 29: The Delhi Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution urging the Centre to immediately withdraw the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as the Delhi Police commissioner, with the AAP MLAs expressing "reasonable apprehensions" that he will be used to create "a reign of terror" against political rivals in the national capital.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal termed the appointment as against the Supreme Court order and said the Union government should make appointments in accordance with rules.
Leader of Opposition Ramvir Singh Bidhuri, however, called Asthana an "honest and decorated" IPS officer who was awarded the President's Police Medal twice.
The ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alleged that the move aimed to "harass" the party leaders.
Raising the issue on the first day of Delhi Assembly's Monsoon session, AAP MLA Sanjiv Jha moved a resolution, saying that Asthana's appointment is "unconstitutional".
"This House expresses its strong disapproval over the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, order dated July 27, 2021, appointing Rakesh Asthana to the post of Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for a period of one year or till further orders.
Given the past track record of this officer (Asthana), there is a reasonable apprehension that the central government will use him for foisting false cases on political rivals to create a reign of terror in the national capital, the resolution stated.
Speaking to reporters, Kejriwal noted, "I feel the appointment of Rakesh Asthana is against the Supreme Court order.
According to reports, he could not become the CBI director as he was ineligible for the post. He is also not eligible for this post (Delhi Police commissioner) for the same reason. The Centre should make the appointment as per rules," he said.
The resolution passed by the Delhi Assembly also stated that such a controversial individual should not be heading the police force in the country's national capital".
The MHA order, is in complete violation of the Supreme Court judgement dated March 13, 2019, in clearly laying down that no individual who has less than six months of service left, can be considered for appointment as head of police force anywhere in the country.
"Further, the post of Commissioner of Police, Delhi, belongs to the AGMUT IPS cadre. This appointment of a controversial Gujarat-cadre officer, who has faced multiple enquiries on serious charges in the past, will only bring Delhi Police into controversies," read the resolution.
The resolution passed by the House also directed the Delhi government to convey to the MHA that the appointment order of Rakesh Asthana be "immediately withdrawn" and fresh process for the appointment of Commissioner of Police for Delhi be initiated in accordance with proper rules and regulations.
The Union government had on Tuesday appointed Asthana as the Delhi Police commissioner, giving him a one-year extension on the new post days before his retirement.
Asthana, a 1984-batch IPS officer, was serving as the director-general of the Border Security Force and was due to retire on July 31.
AAP MLA Sanjiv Jha also questioned Asthana's knowledge of Delhi and policing in the city as he was a Gujarat-cadre officer.
Participating in the debate, AAP MLAs Gulab Singh, Akhilesh Pati Tripathi, Somnath Bharti and B S Joon, supported the resolution and alleged that Asthana was brought to Delhi to "muzzle and harass the AAP .
Tripathi asserted that AAP leaders and workers were not scared by the appointment and added, "We are born out of revolution. We are not like the Congressmen in Gujarat."
AAP MLA Bharti questioned the purpose behind Asthana's appointment, alleging that he has been brought to harass AAP MLAs, councilors and the chief minister".
Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition Ramvir Singh Bidhuri said that Asthana successfully investigated the Godhara carnage and Purulia arms drop cases.
"He also investigated the land scam related to the son-in-law of a political party chief. The House should welcome his appointment," he said.
In his reply over the debate in the House, Delhi Home Minister Satyendar Jain dared Bidhuri for action against the "son-in-law" he was not naming and added that the BJP and Congress are "two sides of the same coin".
He supported the resolution, saying the central government should not have defied the Supreme Court directions while making the appointment.
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)
