Leh violence: Demand for judicial inquiry grows louder, 26 detainees release
_vb_66.jpeg)
Leh (PTI): The clamour for a judicial inquiry into the recent violence here, which left four people dead and scores injured, grew louder on Thursday, with two powerful Buddhist religious bodies and the Kargil Bar Association pressing the demand.
Life seemed to be returning to normal in Leh, which was under a curfew for a week, with authorities relaxing curbs for the whole day on Thursday and releasing 26 detained youths.
The Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) and the All Ladakh Gonpa Association held a joint prayer meeting here and paid tributes to the four youths who were killed in the September 24 police firing here. They also paid tributes to Mahatma Gandhi on his birth anniversary.
After the prayers, the members of the two Buddhist bodies unanimously passed a resolution demanding an impartial judicial inquiry into the alleged excessive use of force and indiscriminate firing by police and paramilitary forces on protesters, adequate compensation for the dependents of those killed and critically injured, and the immediate release of activist Sonam Wangchuk, the groups said in a joint statement.
They also demanded the immediate release of all others detained by police on "flimsy grounds" following the violence and an end to "witch-hunting and harassment" of the local youths in order to restore normalcy in the region.
Talking to reporters after the meeting, LBA president Chering Dorjay said the body's legal advisor, Haji Ghulam Mustafa, has been granted permission to meet Wangchuk, who has been lodged in a Rajasthan prison after his detention under the National Security Act on September 26.
Mustafa has left for Delhi, from where he will proceed to Rajasthan. Some of Wangchuk's family members were also allowed to meet him, said Dorjay, who is also co-chairman of the apex body.
He said 26 people who were detained in the aftermath of the violence have been granted bail by a local court while around 30 remain in custody.
The Leh Apex Body, along with the Kargil Democratic Alliance, has been agitating in support of four demands, including statehood and safeguards for Ladakh under Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, and has held several rounds of talks with the central government.
Both the groups have decided to stay away from talks scheduled for October 6 with the Centre, demanding that a conducive atmosphere be created before the resumption of dialogue by ordering a judicial inquiry and releasing all those detained.
The Kargil Bar Association is on a week-long strike in solidarity with the people of Leh, especially the families of those who lost their loved ones in the violence.
The bar will stay away from all judicial work till October 6, a spokesperson of the association said, adding that the association stands committed to providing free legal assistance to any victim of the unfortunate incident of September 24.
The association urged the Ladakh administration to ensure a free, fair and impartial judicial inquiry into the matter so that justice is served and accountability is fixed, the spokesperson said.
Officials said markets in Leh opened early this morning as police extended the curfew relaxation to full day.
The curfew was imposed on the evening of September 24 and relaxation periods were gradually extended over the days as the situation in the town has remained by and large peaceful, they said.
Mobile internet services, however, remain suspended across the district and prohibitory orders banning assembly of five or more persons remain in force across Ladakh.
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)
