HC questions Maha's refusal to share documents with CBI for its probe against Anil Deshmukh
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned the Maharashtra government's refusal to share certain documents with the CBI for its probe against former state home minister Anil Deshmukh, and said that unless the documents are seen how can the central agency decide if there was any nexus with him over alleged corruption in police transfers and postings.
The state government had earlier claimed that the documents sought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not have any relevance with the agency's corruption probe against Deshmukh.
A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar was hearing an application filed by the CBI alleging that the government was not cooperating by refusing to hand over certain documents in connection with a probe against the NCP leader.
Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing for the CBI, on Friday said the government by refusing to hand over the documents was acting in contempt to a July order passed by the high court, which said that the agency had the power to inquire into corruption in police transfers and the reinstatement of police officer Sachin Waze.
The bench noted that earlier the state government had said that it was not averse to any investigation.
"Now why is the state government averse? We don't have any words. Why should the state government do this?" Justice Shinde said.
Senior counsel Rafiq Dada, appearing for the state government, argued that the HC had not said that the government was bound to give the documents and had in fact said that the CBI should investigate only those aspects that have a nexus with Deshmukh and his associates.
"Unless the CBI sees the documents, how will they (CBI) decide if there is any nexus or not. We only said that the CBI does not have unfettered authority to probe into other transfers. But the documents they are seeking pertain to a report submitted by Rashmi Shukla (IPS officer) on the issue of corruption in police transfers," the court said.
"These documents, we believe, you (government) cannot object to. Whatever period Anil Deshmukh was holding the portfolio of home minister, those documents may be needed," Justice Shinde said.
The court directed Dada to take instructions from the government on what documents it was willing to share with the CBI.
"Both are agencies of the state and the Centre. There are many occasions where information is shared. Tell us the list of documents you (state government) are willing to share. This will lead to a congenial and happy situation," the court said.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 24.
The CBI, in its application filed last month, had said it had written a letter to the State Intelligence Department seeking details of a communication sent by senior IPS officer Rashmi Shukla on the issue of corruption in police transfers and postings, but the SID refused to provide them claiming it was part of an ongoing investigation.
The high court had on July 22 held that the CBI can inquire the allegations of corruption in transfers and postings of police personnel limited to its nexus with Deshmukh and had dismissed a petition filed by the Maharashtra government seeking that some parts of the central agency's FIR against the NCP leader be quashed.
The CBI had on April 21 lodged an FIR against Deshmukh on charges of corruption and misuse of official position. The FIR was lodged after the agency conducted a preliminary inquiry against the state's former home minister following an order from the HC on April 5.
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)
