Most NPAs originated in 2006-08, banks to blame: Raghuram Rajan
New Delhi, Sep 11 : Former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan has said that a big number of non-performing assetes (NPAs) originated in 2006-08 when India's economic growth was strong while some banks proved inadequate in making proper due diligence.
Rajan was replying to a Parliamentary panel on NPA,
Acknowledging corruption as a factor, he also said that though he had forwarded some names for filing cases against some "high profile" bank fraudsters to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, no action had been taken in the matter.
"A larger number of bad loans originated in 2006-08 when economic growth was strong, and previous infrastructure projects such as power plants had been completed on time and within budget.
"It is at such times that banks make mistakes. They extrapolate past growth and performance to the future. So, they are willing to accept higher leverage in projects, and less promoter equity," he said.
In his note to Parliament's Estimates Committee on public sector banks headed by BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi, Rajan said that global slowdown, project cost overruns and government decision-making were among other factors that contributed to the process.
Gross NPAs accumulated in the Indian banking system has touched a staggering level of Rs 10 lakh crore.
Referring to malfeasance as a factor in the NPA issue, Rajan said: "Undoubtedly, there was some... clearly, bankers were overconfident and probably did too little due diligence for some of these loans.
"Unfortunately, the system has been singularly ineffective in bringing even a single high-profile fraudster to book. As a result, fraud is not discouraged.
"I sent a list of four high-profile cases to the PMO for coordinated action to bring at least one or two offenders to book. I am not aware of the progress. This is a matter that should be addressed with urgency," he added.
According to Rajan, the RBI had set up a fraud monitoring cell during his Governorship to coordinate early reporting of such cases to the investigative agencies.
The former Governor also blamed public sector banks for inadequate due diligence before and after handing out loans. "Banker performance after the initial loans were made... (were) also not up to the mark," Rajan said.
"Unscrupulous promoters who inflated the cost of capital equipment through over-invoicing were rarely checked," he noted. He said the RBI could have been more pr-oactive and "raised more flags about the quality of lending in the early days of banking exuberance".
Rajan also said the phenomenon of loan waivers vitiate the credit culture and an all-party agreement to this effect would be in the country's interest in view of impending elections.
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)
