Godman used threats, foreign trip promises to exploit EWS women; 3 wardens under lens
New Delhi (PTI): The self-styled godman on the run after allegedly sexually assaulting several female students of a management institute here, allegedly pressured them with threats of lower grades and lured them with promises of foreign trips, an officer said on Wednesday.
Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati alias Parthsarthy, who has been booked in five cases, including a molestation case each from 2009 and 2016, has been absconding since August 4, when he was booked at the Vasant Kunj North Police Station.
Three women wardens, who allegedly aided him in pressuring the victims, have also been named in the FIR.
According to an officer, the investigation has so far revealed that Saraswati targeted women who got admission under the EWS quota, and sent them explicit messages on social media and SMS.
Some of these messages read: "Come to my room," "I will take you abroad on a trip, You won't have to pay anything" and "If you do not listen to me, I will make sure you fail in your exams."
Police said he would summon female students to his room late at night and threaten them with low grades when they resisted.
Till now, investigators have examined phones of more than 50 students, and many of them were found to have deleted the incriminating chats, the officer said.
The wardens named in the FIR allegedly forced these students to delete the chats and comply with the demands of Saraswati, a sanchalak (member of the management committee) at the Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management -- an institute approved by the All India Council for Technical Education.
"Their role is currently under investigation and the full extent of their involvement will be determined once Saraswati is apprehended," the officer said about the three wardens.
Police have recorded the statements of 32 female PGDM (Post Graduate Diploma in Management) students enrolled under the EWS scholarship at the institute.
Of these women, 17 alleged that Saraswati used abusive language, sent explicit messages, and made unwanted physical advances.
Some CCTV footage is also suspected to have been deleted. Digital Video Recorders, Network Video Recorders, and hard disks from the institute have been sent to the Forensic Lab for examination.
Sixteen victims have so far made their deposition before a magistrate.
Police said several teams have been formed to track Saraswati and a strict vigil has been mounted at airports to prevent him from fleeing the country.
A source claimed that his last location was found to be in Agra.
According to the police statement, Saraswati was booked under sections 75(2) (sexual harassment), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Several houses linked with the godman have been raided.
Meanwhile, the Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam Dakshinamnaya Sri Sharada Peetham, Sringeri, with which Saraswati was earlier associated, issued a public statement distancing itself from him.
The Peetham has also lodged complaints regarding illegal acts committed by Saraswati, it 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)
