Senior lawyer Dushyant Dave writes to CJI over listing of cases in SC
New Delhi, Dec 7: Senior advocate Dushyant Dave on Wednesday wrote to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud expressing anguish over "certain happenings" in the listing of cases and their reallocation to other benches in the Supreme Court and sought immediate corrective measures.
The open letter comes a day after Supreme Court judge S K Kaul expressed surprise when some lawyers, including Prashant Bhushan, alleged sudden deletion from court number two's cause list. The cases related to the Centre's alleged delay in acting on the collegium's recommendations on elevation and transfer of high court judges.
"I am deeply anguished at certain happenings about the listing of cases by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India," Dave, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), said. He added that some cases are sensitive in nature involving "human rights, freedom of speech, democracy, and functioning of statutory and constitutional institutions".
Dave expressed regret that he had to write the open letter as efforts by some lawyers to meet the CJI personally did not yield any result.
He also referred to constitutional schemes and rules governing the listing of cases in the apex court and the administrative power of the CJI as master of the roster.
"Yet, I have personally come across a number of cases listed before various Hon'ble Benches upon first listing and/ or in which notice have been issued, being taken away from those Hon'ble Benches and listed before other Hon'ble Benches. Despite first coram being available the matters are being listed before a Hon'ble Benches in which second coram presides.
"Matters listed before Court No. 2, 4, 6, 7 amongst others have been shifted out and listed before other Hon'ble Benches in clear disregard of the Rules, the Handbook on Practice and Office Procedure referred above and established Practice and Convention. Curiously, the Seniority of the first coram is also being ignored in doing so...," the letter said.
Dave wrote of instances shared by other Supreme Court lawyers on the shifting of cases from one bench to another.
"But it would not be out of place to mention that these matters include some sensitive matters involving human rights, Freedom of Speech, Democracy, and Functioning of Statutory and Constitutional Institutions," he added.
He said such happenings do not augur well for the "highly respected" institution and urged the CJI to "look into this immediately and take corrective measures".
"On your appointment, strong hopes were created in the minds of citizens that under your leadership, the Supreme Court of India will rise to greater heights, the march towards which has somehow paused for some time earlier. The scars caused on account of such improprieties in the past few years on justice delivery have not healed as yet," he 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)
