EC warns parties against use of Sabarimala issue in campaigning, BJP terms directive illogical
Thiruvananthapuram/Kottayam, Mar 11: The Election Commission Monday warned political parties in Kerala not to use the Sabarimala temple matter as a campaign issue, drawing a sharp reaction from the BJP which termed the directive "illogical."
With the poll dates being announced, Kerala Chief Electoral Officer Teeka Ram Meena said "citing or invoking" religious propaganda on the "Sabarimala issue" would be a clear violation of the model code of conduct.
"Inviting religious feelings, using any kind of Supreme Court judgment, invoking or soliciting the votes in the name of religion or by inciting religious feelings is a clear violation of the model code of conduct," he told reporters at Thiruvananthapuram.
The CEO also said the commission would not allow any kind of violation that puts a particular political party at an advantage over another.
Reacting to the directive, BJP state general secretary K Surendran said the stand taken by the state government on Sabarimala issue would be an election issue.
"It is 100 per cent that the stand taken by the (state) government on Sabarimala issue will be discussed in elections.
No one can interfere in it... It is illogical to say that the Sabarimala issue should not be discussed in the election," Surendran told the media at Kottayam.
Addressing the media in Thiruvananthapuram, the CEC said "inviting religious feelings, using any kind of Supreme Court judgement, invoking or soliciting the votes in the name of religion or by inciting religious feelings is a clear violation of the model code of conduct."
The CEC also said the commission would not allow any kind of violation that puts a particular political party at an advantage over another.
"Citing or invoking or doing something of religious propaganda on the Sabarimala issue by invoking the name of Sabari God, etc., will be a clear violation of the model code of conduct," Meena said.
He added that the Sabarimala issue was a controversial matter as far as Kerala was concerned and political parties "need to draw a line to what extent they have to use it".
"Tomorrow, I am holding a meeting with political parties in this regard and I will be requesting them not to unnecessarily use this religious feeling or religious traditions to solicit votes as this may create some religious tensions among people.
If that happens, action will be taken against those responsible," Meena said.
Surendran said as per election rules no one can speak against the Supreme Court order on the Sabarimala matter and no stand can be taken against other religions during the elections.
Kerala witnessed widespread violence by devotees and right-wing activists after the state government decided to implement the Supreme Court's September 28, 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple.
The BJP has already pinned its hope on the Sabarimala issue as it believes that it was able to create a momentum among its workers.
The saffron party's central leadership brought back former BJP state chief Kummanam Rajasekharan, who was appointed as Mizoram governor nine months ago, to lead the party in the state.
The Lok Sabha elections will begin on April 11 and continue for over a month till May 19 across seven phases, followed by counting of votes on May 23.
Kerala will go to the polls on April 23.
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)
