Opposition, BJP welcome SC verdict on Aadhaar
New Delhi, Sep 26 : The opposition as well as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court judgement that upheld the legality of Aadhaar but restricted its use for disbursement of welfare schemes and junked its requirement for cell phones, bank accounts and school admission.
Soon after the verdict came, Congress President Rahul Gandhi tweeted: "For Congress, Aadhaar was an instrument of empowerment. For the BJP, Aadhaar is a tool of oppression and surveillance. Thank you Supreme Court for supporting the Congress vision and protecting India."
Separately, the Congress party in a statement said the decision to strike down the Narendra Modi government's "surveillance tool" will put an end to the government's "abuse of power".
It said that through its judgment, the Supreme Court has firmly put an end to the "mass surveillance exercise" being carried out under the guise of Aadhaar and the "grotesque distortion of an idea conceived by the UPA".
Referring to the minority judgment by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the Congress said it is a scathing indictment of the government's clandestine and dishonest approach towards its parliamentary responsibilities.
The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), too, hailed Justice Chandrachud's observation and reiterated that Aadhaar should not be mandatory for any welfare scheme.
The Left party pointed out that although the apex court has ruled that private companies cannot have access to the data, and Aadhaar is not required for bank accounts, mobile connections, admissions to educational institutions and entrance exams, private companies involved with the government would still have access to the Aadhaar data.
"While this may provide some protection to right to privacy, a major problem arises when this Central government has privatised and outsourced to private companies many government responsibilities.
"Such companies will have access to Aadhaar data. This is violative of the right to privacy -- a fundamental right -- ruled by the apex court itself," it said.
Welcoming the judgement, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said it vindicated her stand.
"People should have some rights. If bank and mobile phones are linked to Aadhaar card then everything about the person will come into public domain. That this logic is correct and irrefutable has been proved today," Banerjee told the media in Milan, Italy.
BJP President Amit Shah also welcomed the apex court's verdict, albeit for a different reason.
"Today's Supreme Court Judgment is a strong validation of Aadhaar as an instrument of service delivery. It gives further impetus to empowering the poor by ensuring that they get their rights," Shah said in a tweet.
"Aadhaar under (Congress-led) UPA government was ‘Niradhaar' (baseless) and had no purpose. UPA spent thousands of crores to enrol people without any law or scrutiny. The Narendra Modi government gave it a strong legal backing and integrated it in service delivery. This ensured savings of Rs 90,000 crore and benefited the poor," Shah said.
The BJP called the verdict as "big victory for Modi government".
"We see this as a big victory of the pro-poor Modi government," BJP's national spokesperson Sambit Patra told the media.
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)
