Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case: SC grants two-week interim bail to activist Mahesh Raut
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail for two weeks to activist Mahesh Raut, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, for attending the rituals following the death of his grandmother.
A vacation bench of justices Vikram Nath and S V N Bhatti directed that the interim bail will commence from June 26 and Raut shall surrender without fail on July 10.
The bench passed the order on his application seeking interim bail to attend the rituals which are likely to be held on June 29-30 and July 5-6.
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration already undergone by the respondent and also the nature of request made for the purpose, we are inclined to grant two weeks interim bail to the applicant (Raut) which may commence from June 26, 2024 and end on July 10, 2024," the bench said.
It said the terms and conditions of the release shall be determined by the special court and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) would be at liberty to request the trial court to impose such stringent conditions as may be necessary.
"The applicant, on being released on June 26, shall surrender without fail on July 10, 2024, that is, on completion of two weeks," it said.
The top court had in September last year extended the stay granted by the Bombay High Court on the implementation of its verdict granting bail to Raut.
The NIA had earlier challenged in the top court the September 21 last year order of the high court granting bail to 33-year-old Raut, who was arrested in June 2018 and is presently lodged in judicial custody at the Taloja prison.
After the high court had pronounced its verdict, the counsel representing the NIA had sought stay on the operation of its order to enable the probe agency to challenge it before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing on Friday, Raut's counsel told the bench that he was earlier granted bail by the Bombay High Court and the NIA approached the apex court challenging that order.
The NIA's counsel said Raut's grandmother had passed away in May and he wanted interim bail now.
"What is the necessity to rush to this court?" the NIA's counsel said.
The bench said the NIA's plea is pending before the apex court.
"Bail granted by the high court has been stayed by this court on your (NIA) petition. Obviously, where will the respondent move for interim bail?" the bench said, adding, "because of the stay granted by this court, do you expect the special court to entertain the application filed by the applicant?"
The case pertains to the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which according to the Pune Police was funded by Maoists.
The inflammatory speeches made there led to violence at the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial in Pune the next day, the police had alleged. The case was later probed by the NIA.
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)
