Haryana IPS officer's 'suicide': Family gives consent, autopsy to be conducted soon, say police
Chandigarh (PTI): Ending an impasse over the autopsy of Haryana IPS officer Y Puran Kumar, who allegedly committed suicide here on October 7, his family has given consent to conduct his post-mortem examination, a police official said on Wednesday.
The development came a day after Chandigarh Police moved court seeking direction to Kumar's family to identify the body for post-mortem.
The family of the deceased officer, including his wife and IAS officer Amneet P Kumar, arrived at the PGIMER here on Wednesday to identify the body and complete other formalities, and the post-mortem will be conducted at PGIMER soon, the official said.
On police's plea, a local court had issued a notice to Kumar's wife to file a reply either personally or through counsel on October 15, failing which the application will be decided on merit.
Inspector General Y Puran Kumar, 52, allegedly shot himself dead on October 7. However, a post-mortem could not be conducted as his family refused to give consent until action is taken against the Haryana officers who have been named in a 'final note' of the deceased Dalit senior officer.
Chandigarh Police has constituted a six-member special investigation team to probe the case.
Amid opposition's attack and demand from Kumar's family for action against officers accused of harassing him, the Haryana government on Tuesday sent DGP Shatrujeet Kapur on leave, and given the additional charge of Haryana DGP to O P Singh, a 1992-batch IPS officer.
Last week, it had transferred Rohtak Superintendent of Police Narendra Bijarniya.
Kumar's body has been kept at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER).
On Tuesday, Chandigarh Police said it was constrained to approach a local court for direction to the family to come forward for identification of the body for the post-mortem.
Earlier, they requested the family through the investigating officer, the senior superintendent of police and inspector general of police for the autopsy.
In a statement on Tuesday, Chandigarh Police said that it is absolutely vital at this stage that the post-mortem be conducted at the earliest to preserve important forensic evidence and in the interest of justice.
Police had earlier said that a board of doctors was constituted for the autopsy in the presence of executive magistrate, ballistic expert, toxicology expert, forensic expert, and fingerprint expert with arrangements made for videography and photography.
An eight-page 'final note' purportedly left behind by Kumar accused eight senior IPS officers -- including Haryana DGP Kapur and now-transferred Rohtak SP Bijarniya -- of "blatant caste-based discrimination, targeted mental harassment, public humiliation and atrocities".
Kumar's wife had demanded that Kapur and Bijarniya be named in the FIR and arrested for alleged abetment of her husband's suicide.
Meanwhile, adding a twist to the suspected suicide of IG Puran Kumar, who served in Rohtak, an assistant sub-inspector in the district, Sandeep Kumar, allegedly shot himself dead on Tuesday, purportedly levelling corruption allegations against the late senior officer.
ASI Sandeep Kumar's alleged suicide came in the backdrop of the escalating row over Puran Kumar's death, which shook up the police top brass and raked up a political storm.
On Tuesday, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi visited Puran Kumar's family and called for the respect of all Dalits. He asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Haryana government to take immediate action and arrest the officials responsible.
After Puran Kumar's suicide, several political leaders cutting across party lines had been visiting the family at their Sector 24 residence to offer condolences.
Many opposition leaders had been demanding action in Puran Kumar's alleged suicide case.
Members of several Dalit outfits and some opposition parties have staged protests at different places in Haryana, demanding strict action against the accused in the case.
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)
