Facebook removes Rahul Gandhi's post for policy violation
New Delhi(PTI) : After Twitter, Facebook has removed a content posted by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi that identified the family of a nine-year-old victim of alleged rape and murder in Northwest Delhi, saying it violated the social media platform's policies.
According to sources, Facebook has informed Gandhi and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) about the removal of the posts from Facebook and Instagram.
Earlier this week, Facebook had written to Gandhi asking him to remove the said post from Instagram -- Facebook's photosharing platform.
"We have taken action to remove the content as it was in violation of our policies," a Facebook spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Friday.
Facebook takes action against a content if it violates its Community Standards or upon receiving a valid legal request as per Indian laws.
Last week, NCPCR had asked Facebook to take appropriate action against Gandhi's Instagram profile over violation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code, and demanded the removal of the video from the platform.
Following the communication from Facebook to Gandhi earlier week, NCPCR withdrew its direction to the company to appear before the commission with an explanation over non-action regarding Gandhi's post.
Earlier this month, Gandhi had met the family of the nine-year-old girl and asserted that he is with them on the path to justice and "will not back down even an inch". Later, he posted a picture of his meeting with the girl's parents on Instagram.
Similar posts were also shared on Twitter. The microblogging platform had locked accounts of Gandhi as well as many other Congress leaders who tweeted the controversial post. On August 14, Twitter restored Gandhi's account after the Congress leader submitted a consent letter from the family of the victim.
Twitter, however, continues to withhold the tweets that contain the images saying they violate India's laws.
"As part of the appeal process, @RahulGandhi (the official Twitter handle of Rahul Gandhi) has submitted a copy of the formal consent/authorisation letter to use the referenced image via our India Grievance Channel," Twitter spokesperson had said.
The law provides that identity of a juvenile victim of sexual assault cannot be disclosed. Tweeting pictures of the family violated that and so the accounts were locked. During the period the accounts were locked, the owner could access the account but not allowed to send out new tweets. This was to allow them to delete the contentious tweets.
But neither Gandhi nor Congress and its leaders did that. Instead, they submitted a consent letter from the family of the alleged rape victim for use of their images.
"We have followed the necessary due diligence process to review the appeal in order to protect the safety and privacy of the affected individuals. We have updated our enforcement action based on the consent provided by the people depicted in the image," the Twitter spokesperson had said.
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)
