Law exam paper: If a Muslim kills a cow…
“Ahmed, a Muslim kills a cow in a market in the presence of Rohit, Tushar, Manav and Rahul, who are Hindus. Has Ahmed committed any offence?” This was among the questions in a third-semester end term examination for law students of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU).
The question formed a part of the Law of Crimes-I paper held on December 7. Of the colleges affiliated to GGSIPU, ten offer the LLB course and received the question paper.
As an image of the question paper surfaced on social media, the university, when contacted, said it “regretted” the question and decided to “delete” it, and that students will not be evaluated on their answer. Delhi Education Minister Manish Sisodia said he had ordered an inquiry into the matter.
“It is very bizarre and seems to be an attempt to disturb the harmony of society. We won’t tolerate such misconduct. I am ordering an inquiry, and if found true, strongest action will be taken,” Sisodia said.
Bilal Anwar Khan, a Supreme Court lawyer, tweeted an image of the question paper Sunday night and wrote, “Here is a new normal, de-humanising an entire community. A law college at Narela, NCR’s third-semester question paper (sic)”.
The college he was referring to is the Chandra Prabhu Jain (CPJ) College of Higher Studies and School of Law at Narela, which is affiliated to GGSIPU.
Khan said he had written to the university and the college about the matter but was yet to receive a response. In his email, he said, “The nature of question paper is highly derogatory in its form and nature against particular class and community. The question blatantly dehumanises one community which is against the very spirit of the Constitution of India and the egalitarian values… Please kindly take the appropriate action against such vilification.”
Neeta Beri, Principal of the School of Law at CPJ College, said the university had made the question paper but added that she did not feel the need to take up the matter with the authorities. “I was not aware of this paper as I have been on leave, but I don’t think I need to raise a voice against this. It’s a question of law. Any situation can arise, and the court can be asked to take a decision on the same,” she said.
An official at GGSIPU’s examination department said the paper was drafted in utmost confidentiality. While he did not reveal the examiner’s name, he said, “Questions are being asked on the basis of what is happening in society. It’s a good thing to ask students such questions so that they can correlate legal provision with the facts of the society. It has to be seen only from the academic perspective.”
However, GGSIPU Registrar Satnam Singh said the university “regretted the error”. “You cannot connect anything to any religion. Of course it is bad. We do regret the question, and as of now the question stands deleted. No marks will be given for it, either for those who have attempted or for those who have not attempted. In future, we will also give an advisory to the examiners, that such questions should not be asked,” he told The Indian Express.
Courtesy: indianexpress.com
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)
