SC cancels bail granted to two men by Allahabad HC in minor's gangrape case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court order granting bail to two persons, accused of kidnapping and gangraping a 14 year-old minor, and expressed displeasure for not making the survivor a party during the bail plea hearing.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma asked the accused – Khargesh alias Golu and Karan – to surrender before the trial court on or before December 30.
The bench in the process allowed the survivor's plea, filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva, seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court.
Taking a strong exception to the fact that neither the accused nor the public prosecutor nor the Allahabad HC informed the minor survivor about the bail hearing, the bench said, "In the instant case, there is gross violation of the said statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of CrPC and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, at the instance of the respondents."
The high court in the impugned order also did not consider the mandatory requirement of both the Acts and granted bail to the respondents in a very casual and cursory manner, without assigning any cogent reasons, though they were prima facie involved in a very serious offence, noted the bench's order on December 13.
The apex court held the bail orders were in "utter disregard" of the mandatory provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act while setting them aside.
"It appears that the respondents concerned -- accused had not impleaded the present appellant as the party respondent in the bail proceedings filed by them before the high court, and the public prosecutor concerned also had not informed the appellant victim about the said proceedings,” it said.
Referring to the legal provisions, the bench said the presence of the survivor or any person authorised by him or her was obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person in cases related to rape and gangrape.
"Similarly, it is also mandatory on the part of the special public prosecutor of the state government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act,” the bench said.
According to the plea, the minor had known the accused persons, who were her neighbours, for a long time and on July 27, 2021, one of them, Karan, forced her to meet near a temple on the pretext of going to a park.
Three other accused persons later came in a car and took her to a flat, where they took turns to rape her and "brutally assaulted" her when she tried to raise an alarm, the plea said.
The trial court, on September 13, 2021, dismissed the bail plea of one of the accused on the ground that the survivor's supported the case in her statement.
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)
