Second CBI charge-sheet soon against Mallya, to name officials
New Delhi, Sep 17 : The CBI will name some bank officials in its second charge-sheet to be filed soon against fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya in a Rs 9,000-crore loan default case against him and his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, informed sources said.
Both serving and retired senior officials of a consortium of 17 banks, including the SBI, who had handled the Kingfisher Airlines loans, are to be named as accused in the charge-sheet as the CBI has gathered enough evidence against them on misuse of official position, the sources said.
The charge-sheet will mention the details of loan fraud committed by Mallya against a consortium of 17 banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), said the sources, adding that some of these loans were granted despite Kingfisher's low creditworthiness and overvaluation of some securities.
Kingfisher began defaulting on loans beginning 2009-10.
According to the sources, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has come across the role of some senior bank officials in the irregularities while disbursing these loans.
The then Chief Managing Directors of banks -- O.P. Bhatt (SBI), T.S. Narayanaswami (Bank of India), M.D. Mallya (Bank of Baroda), S.K. Goel (UCO Bank), and then Chairman of United Bank -- are to be named in the charge-sheet against whom action was not taken in 2009 when a loan of Rs 2,000 crore was sanctioned to Kingfisher, said the sources.
"Bhatt is learnt to have led the consortium to offer the Rs 2,000 crore loan and also ensured that the SBI have a loan of Rs 300 crore on an ad hoc basis in August 2010."
Ex-Kingfisher Airlines Chief Financial Officer A. Raghunathan and other former senior executives are also likely to be named in the charge-sheet.
Mallya is currently facing extradition from London where he flew on March 2, 2016.
The CBI last year had filed a charge-sheet against Mallya in a separate case related to a Rs 900 crore pending loan given by IDBI Bank in which senior officials of the bank were allegedly involved.
The probe agency had registered two cases against Mallya related to the IDBI loans in 2015 and a consortium loan in 2016.
The CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, which is probing the money laundering aspect in the case, have named IDBI officials B.K. Batra, Yogesh Agarwal, O.V. Bundelu, S.K Shrivastava and R.S. Sridhar in their charge sheets last year.
The CBI FIR alleged that the SBI and its consortium banks had advanced various credit facilities to Kingfisher Airlines between 2005 and 2010.
During 2009-10, the company failed to meet its repayment commitments to the banks.
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)
