Rights activists slam delay in releasing bodies of slain Maoists, call it ‘Dehumanising’
Hyderabad/Raipur: The Coordination Committee for Peace on Monday expressed grave concern over the continued withholding of the bodies of individuals killed in the May 21 anti-Maoist operation in Chhattisgarh's Abujhmarh region. Families of the deceased, hailing from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, have reportedly been waiting for days to claim the remains of their loved ones, but without success.
In a strongly worded statement, the committee alleged that the delay constitutes a gross violation of constitutional, legal, and humanitarian obligations. Citing the assurance given by the Advocate General of Chhattisgarh before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on May 24 that post-mortems would be conducted and the bodies released, the committee accused the authorities of failing to honour their commitment.
The group also raised serious concerns about reports that the bodies have not been preserved in cold storage, leading to decomposition. It described the situation as a violation of medico-legal protocols and the right to dignity in death, adding that such treatment is “dehumanising and traumatic” for the grieving families.
Further controversy erupted when the Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India in court, opposed handing over at least two bodies, citing possible "law and order" issues during funeral processions. The committee described this stance as "callous and constitutionally untenable," noting that the families had already assured the court of their willingness to comply with any conditions to ensure peaceful last rites.
"We find this obstruction to be not just an administrative lapse, but a deliberate affront to grief and human dignity," said the committee in its statement.
Reports have also surfaced of intimidation and harassment of family members, ambulance drivers, and volunteers who are helping in the process. The committee called such actions an “unconscionable abuse of state power.”
Quoting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the committee emphasized that the right to dignity extends even after death. The group referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, which held that the right to life includes the right to a dignified treatment of the deceased.
The statement also highlighted India’s obligations under international humanitarian law, including:
- Article 130 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which mandates honourable burial of the dead according to their religious rites;
Article 16 of the First Geneva Convention, which requires protection of the deceased from mistreatment;
and the 2005 UN Human Rights Commission resolution, which affirms the need for dignified handling of mortal remains.
Domestically, the National Human Rights Commission’s 2020 advisory on the dignity of the dead was also cited, which sets clear standards for timely and respectful handling of bodies.
The Coordination Committee for Peace issued the following demands:
- Immediate release of all bodies to the respective families.
- Cessation of harassment of families, ambulance drivers, and support personnel.
- Full implementation of constitutional and international obligations regarding the dignity of the dead.
- Adherence to legal protocols for handling bodies in counterinsurgency operations.
“Every human being deserves dignity in death,” the statement read. “The continued detention of these bodies is not only legally questionable but morally reprehensible.”
The statement was endorsed by several prominent figures, including Prof. G. Haragopal, Prof. G. Laxman, Dr. M.F. Gopinath, Kavita Srivastava, Kranti Chaitanya, and Meena Kandasamy.
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)
