SC agrees to examine plea against stray dog culling in Karnataka
New Delhi, Nov 17: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a plea seeking contempt action against the chief officer of a municipal council in Karnataka and a private contractor on allegations of mass culling of stray dogs.
A bench of Justices N V Ramana and M M Shantanagoudar issued notice to Wilson VT, Chief officer of Municipal Council of Sakleshpura town, and contractor V George Robert and sought their response in four weeks.
Advocate Siddharth Garg, appearing for petitioner animal rights activist Neveena Kamath, said the contempt proceedings should be initiated against the two respondents for willfully disobeying the specific directions of the apex court.
He said that on November 18, 2015, the apex court had directed that all local authorities and panchayats should strictly follow the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2001 and that no "subterfuge or innovative methods" to circumvent the order of the court will be tolerated.
Garg said the PCA Act 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2001 prohibit any wanton catching and relocation of stray dogs and only allow catching for the purpose of sterilisation and relocation back to the same place, where the stray dogs were picked up.
According to the petition, Wilson had given contract to George to catch and then relocate stray dogs within his municipality.
George was paid Rs 91,537 for catching and relocating 350 stray dogs.
"It must be made clear that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the ABC Rules, 2001 only allow catching then sterilising, vaccinating and then relocation at the very same place. They do not allow any such catching and dislocating," the plea said.
It said that the respondents have "deliberately and willfully" violated the orders of this court and contempt proceedings should be initiated against them.
"If such violations are not dealt, swiftly and sternly, by this Court then it will send a very wrong message to society that the orders of the apex court can be trifled with and there are no consequences for even the most open and egregious defiance. The actions of the Respondents are making a mockery of the majesty of this Court and invite the wrath of this Court to its fullest extent," the plea said.
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)
