I was tortured, asked to name Narendra Modi in Malegaon blast case: Pragya Singh Thakur
Mumbai, Aug 2 (PTI): Former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, acquitted in the September 2008 Malegaon blast case, on Saturday alleged that she was tortured by the investigating officers who asked her to name several persons including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
This is the first time Thakur has made this sensational claim which finds no mention in the 1036-page judgment of the special NIA court acquitting all seven accused in the case.
Thakur appeared before the sessions court here on Saturday to complete her surety formalities. Speaking to reporters outside, she claimed that she was tortured during her interrogation.
Notably, special judge A K Lahoti in his judgment has dismissed Thakur's claims of torture and ill-treatment.
"They (officers) told me to take PM Modi's name, as at the time I was staying in Surat (Gujarat). There are several names like Bhagwat (apparent reference to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat) and so on, but I did not take anyone's name as I did not want to lie," Thakur told reporters.
She had put all this in writing, she claimed.
"Their objective was to torture me. They said if I did not take the names, then they will torture me. The names include Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Sudarshan ji, Indresh ji, Ram ji Madhav, and many more, which I can't recall at the moment," Thakur said.
The former BJP MP alleged that she was detained illegally even in the hospital where she had fainted and her lungs had collapsed.
"I am writing my story in which I will mention all this. The truth will come out. This is a victory of religion, victory of Sanatan dharma, and victory of Hindutva...this is a Sanatani Rashtra, and it is always victorious. They tried very hard by torturing me and bringing all devotees of the country in this....we will try so that they are punished," she said.
The court in its judgment said while Thakur had alleged ill-treatment, no evidence was presented to support her claims.
It also referred to a Supreme Court order of 2011 in which it rejected her claims of illegal custody, torture and detention. The trial court further said that Thakur had not made any complaint before the court in Nashik when she was produced for remand after her arrest.
"There is no evidence (of torture and ill-treatment) brought to my notice and hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission," judge Lahoti said.
Thakur, meanwhile, said the whole case against her was baseless.
She described Param Bir Singh, then assistant commissioner of police with the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), as a "wicked person".
"Singh, (then ATS chief) Hemant Karkare and Sukhwinder Singh tortured me and wanted me to tell lies. But I refused," she alleged.
Six people were killed and 101 were injured in a blast at Malegaon in Maharashtra's Nashik district on September 29, 2008.
The special court on July 31 acquitted Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit and five others in the case noting that the prosecution had not adduced cogent and reliable evidence to warrant conviction and to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
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)
