Opposition parties, Shiv Sena pitch for election through ballot papers
New Delhi, Aug 27 : Several opposition parties and ruling NDA constituent Shiv Sena on Monday pushed for reverting back to ballot paper in place of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and opposed simultaneous elections at a meeting convened by the Election Commission which also saw some parties pitching for state funding of elections.
The Shiv Sena differed with its ally BJP to support the polls through ballot paper and the CPI-M too differed from other opposition parties and said it was not for returning to the old system of holding elections. It sought more safeguards in EVMs.
Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat said after the meeting that the poll panel will take a call on all the issues raised by parties including on EVMs and ballot paper, integrity of electoral rolls and ceiling on expenditure by political parties.
"We will definitely look into the issues presented by them. There will be a satisfactory solution to them," Rawat said.
Parties like the Congress, CPI, Trinamool Congress, BSP, DMK and Shiv Sena said that there should be a return to ballot papers while the BJP and BJD said they were satisfied with electronic voting machines (EVMs).
The AAP said either the count to verify electronic voting machine (EVM) results with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) should be increased or there should be a return to ballot paper while the AIADMK said it was fine both with EVMs and ballot paper.
Congress leader Mukul Wasnik said the party supported "the demand of using ballot paper in the election in the present situation." He said malfunctioning of EVMs was a major issue.
"VVPATs were introduced but are not being cross-checked. We demanded that at least 30 per cent of the votes should be cross-checked," Wasnik said.
He said more transparency was required in the voters list as a number of cases had surfaced in the recent past where lakhs and lakhs of bogus voters were found. "These bogus voters affect the entire electoral process."
Shiv Sena leader Anil Desai said: "We have made a point... Let us go back to ballot papers. We have insisted on ballot papers for elections to the largest democracy."
BJP leader and union minister J.P. Nadda said the Election Commission's efforts to match EVM results with VVPAT was a good move.
"We should think ahead. The Election Commission has properly replied to all questions raised about the EVMs and we should look forward. (Using) VVPAT is a good move and it should be taken forward," he said.
Asked about the Congress demand for a return to ballot paper, he said that party's "habit of looking forward has ended".
Nadda said the BJP laid emphasis on correct identification of voters and proper training of people involved in the process. "(For) accurate voting there should be accurate identification. There should not be proxy identification."
Nadda said the voter slip should not be the only way for identification as it can be purchased by an influential candidate and it should also be on the basis of six other identified documents.
"The other thing we said was that deletion of a voter from electoral rolls should be with a reason and should not take place below the level of district magistrate," he said.
Bahujan Samaj Party's Satish Misra said EVMs can be hacked. He said almost every party, except one, had made the demand and the world had gone back to the ballot paper.
Kalyan Banerjee of Trinamool Congress said they were demanding state funding of elections to check corruption.
He said there was time still to implement voting through ballot paper before the Lok Sabha elections.
CPI-M's Nilotpal Basu said they mainly raised the question of funding of elections because this was the issue agitating the minds of electorate.
"Corporate funding has been promoted in such a big way." He said some parties want to go back to the ballot box but the CPI-M wanted much more "thorough-going reforms.
"We are not for returning. We are for further strengthening the safeguards which can make them more transparent and can really remove the "doubts in public mind," he said.
He said simultaneous polls were not discussed but in the written submission the party had said that the suggestion was "totally anti-Constitutional."
The AIADMK said it was not against the ballot paper or EVMs.
"We are ready to face anything. At the same time, we suggested there should not be any malpractice, any doubt regarding EVM machines during the elections," senior AIADMK leader and Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker M. Thambidurai said.
He said state funding was the only answer to stop election malpractices.
CPI's Atul Kumar Anjan said there was a need to put an end to electronic voting system as many people in this country have sugar and eyesight related problems.
"Within eight seconds they cannot see to whom they have voted. There are lots of troubles with these machines."
BJD's Pinaki Mishra said: "We would ideally like the EC to lay down as to what percentage of the VVPAT paper trail they are going to count. Once that is done, I believe everyone should be reasonably satisfied."
He said his party supports the idea of simultaneous elections.
AAP's Raghav Chadha said EVMs can be easily hacked and there were incidents where these machines have created trouble during elections.
"At least 20 per cent voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines and electronic voting machines (EVMs) should be verified or paper ballot system should be implemented," he said.
LJP leader and Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan told reporters that the party had not received "notice" for the meeting.
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)
