SC refuses to entertain plea against movie 'Hamare Baarah', permits withdrawal of petition
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging certain alleged controversial dialogues and scenes in Annu Kapoor-starrer movie 'Hamare Baarah'.
The Bombay High Court had on June 19 allowed the release of the movie after its makers agreed to delete certain objectionable portions.
The matter came up for hearing on Friday before a vacation bench of justices Vikram Nath and S V N Bhatti, which allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
"By this writ petition, I have challenged certain controversial dialogues and scenes in the picture," the counsel appearing for the petitioner said.
The top court said a similar petition had come up before it last week.
It said the Bombay High Court has allowed the release of the movie and the petitioner can challenge that order.
"The high court has examined it and thereafter, the high court has allowed the movie to be screened. Now, if you are still aggrieved, challenge it," the bench said.
The petitioner's counsel said he had filed the plea in the apex court on June 7 but it could not be listed earlier.
"We are not inclined to hear this matter on merits today," the bench observed.
"Let us follow the procedure which is consistent with our system," it said, adding the high court had seen the movie and asked for expunging few scenes and dialogues.
"If you seek leave and file an appeal (against high court order), then it would be correct for this court to examine your independent grounds… ," the bench said.
The counsel then urged the bench that he be allowed to withdraw the petition.
The bench allowed the withdrawal of plea with liberty to file a fresh petition assailing the correctness of the high court judgment.
While hearing a separate plea on June 13, the top court had stayed the June 14 release of the movie after taking note of allegations that the film was derogatory to the Islamic faith and married Muslim women.
The bench had stayed the screening of the film till disposal of the petition by the high court.
The film got embroiled in a legal battle after a bunch of petitions were filed in the high court claiming that it was derogatory towards the Islamic faith and the Muslim community.
A division bench of the high court had viewed the film and suggested certain changes to it which both the makers and the petitioners agreed to.
The high court had said the makers shall make the necessary changes and then release the movie.
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)
