Mehul Choksi 'fugitive and absconder', ED tells Bombay High Court
Mumbai: Diamantaire Mehul Choksi, accused in the multi-crore Punjab National Bank scam, is a "fugitive and absconder", the Enforcement Directorate told the Bombay High Court on Monday.
The agency, in its affidavit, sought dismissal of two petitions filed by Choksi one against a plea for him to be declared a fugitive economic offender and the second to permit him to cross-examine those persons on whose statements the ED is relying on to declare Choksi a fugitive economic offender.
The ED, in its affidavit submitted on Monday to a division bench headed by Justice I A Mahanty, said Choksi is accused of siphoning and laundering money to the tune of Rs 6,097 crore in the PNB scam, and despite having issued summons directing him to appear before the agency, he has said he does not intend to cooperate with the probe.
"He is a fugitive and absconder. He has deliberately and intentionally evaded from appearing before the investigating agency even after a special court has issued non-bailable warrants against him. This shows that he does not have any regard for the law of the land," the affidavit said.
"It is apparent that the applicant (Choksi) has left India to avoid criminal prosecution for the offence of money laundering under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and continues to refuse to return to India to face criminal prosecution," it said.
It added that Choksi has already taken citizenship of Antigua which clearly shows that he has no intention of returning to India to cooperate with the probe.
The agency further said that under the Fugitive Economic Offender Act, if the fugitive appears in person before the court then the proceedings can be terminated. However, it said, if the person fails to do so the court can declare him a fugitive economic offender and can confiscate his properties.
"The sole purpose of the Act is to compel the fugitive to return to India and face the proceedings initiated against him," the affidavit said.
The Act was introduced as an effective, expeditious and constitutional way to stop offenders from running away, it added.
The high court will take up the petitions for hearing on Tuesday. Choksi, in his plea, claimed he was unable to return to India due to persistent health problems.
To this, the ED said it was merely a facade and that Choksi can seek treatment for his health problems in India.
Choksi and his nephew Nirav Modi are wanted by the ED and the CBI for allegedly defrauding the PNB to the tune of Rs 13,400 crore, in collusion with a few of its employees.
The ED had filed an application before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act court, seeking for Choksi to be declared a "fugitive economic offender" for evading summons to appear before the agency and for his properties be confiscated under the provisions of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018.
Choksi had then filed an application before the lower court, seeking for the ED's plea to be dismissed. When the lower court rejected his application, Choksi approached the high court in April this year.
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_28.jpeg)
