Haryana IPS officer's 'suicide': Family will get justice, says CM Saini
Chandigarh (PTI): In his first public comments over a case involving an IPS officer's "suicide", Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini assured the deceased's family members on Saturday that they will get justice.
Y Puran Kumar, 52, a 2001-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, allegedly shot himself dead at his Sector-11 residence here on Tuesday. He has left behind a "final note".
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Haryana is facing flak from the opposition over the alleged suicide of the officer, with leaders demanding an independent probe into his death.
Addressing a gathering of BJP workers in Panchkula, Saini said Kumar's family members have told him that they want justice.
"I have said that we will probe the matter and whosoever is found guilty, action will certainly be taken against him, no matter how big a person he may be," the chief minister said.
He further said he has spoken to the deceased's wife, Indian Administrative (IAS) officer Amneet P Kumar.
"We are also in touch with the Centre for the resolution of this issue," he said.
Saini asked the opposition parties not to indulge in politics over the issue.
If the deceased's family feels that injustice has been done with it, "we will ensure justice", he said.
"The family will get justice," the chief minister asserted.
Describing Puran Kumar's death as unfortunate, Saini said he had asked two officers to accompany the deceased's wife on her way back to India from Japan after she was informed of her husband's demise.
Amneet Kumar was part of a delegation led by Saini on a three-day tour of Japan when her husband allegedly shot himself in Chandigarh.
She has alleged that her husband's death was the result of "systematic persecution" by high-ranking officers.
After arriving from Japan, Saini met Amneet Kumar here to convey his condolences.
The Chandigarh Police registered an FIR on Thursday on charges of abetment to suicide and under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, based on the deceased officer's "final note".
In the eight-page "final note", Puran Kumar has named many senior IPS officers, specifically referring to Haryana Director General of Police (DGP) Shatrujeet Kapur and Rohtak's Superintendent of Police (SP) Narendra Bijarniya, for allegedly harassing and maligning him.
The Chandigarh Police constituted a six-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Friday for a "prompt, impartial and thorough" probe in the matter in a time-bound manner.
Chandigarh's Inspector General (IG) Pushpendra Kumar will lead the SIT.
In her complaint to the Chandigarh Police on Wednesday, Amneet Kumar sought an FIR against Kapur and Bijarniya under section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (abetment to suicide) and the relevant provisions of the SC-ST Act, demanding their immediate arrest.
In his "final note", Puran Kumar has named eight senior IPS officers, including Kapur and Bijarniya.
A "will" and the "final note" were among the articles found at the scene where the officer's body was found on Tuesday, according to police.
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)
