Three-member panel probing Vikas Dubey's encounter gives clean chit to police
Lucknow(PTI): A three-member commission probing the encounter of gangster Vikas Dubey has given a clean chit to police, stating their version of events about his death were supported by evidence.
The commission said that Kanpur ambush in which eight cops were killed occurred because of "poor planning" by the police as it did not assess the situation correctly and there was "total failure" of Kanpur local intelligence.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Suresh Khanna tabled the report in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly on Thursday.
"The evidence adduced in the (Dubey encounter) case supports police's version of the incident. The injuries suffered by policemen could not be self-inflicted or fabricated. Dr RS Mishra, who was on the panel of doctors, conducted the post-mortem and clarified that the injuries found on his person (Dubey) could be caused as per the version of police," the report said.
"Nobody came forward from the public and media to controvert the police version and no evidence is filed in rebuttal. Richa Dubey, wife of Vikas, filed an affidavit calling the incident a fake encounter but she did not appear before the commission," it said, adding that in such eventuality, no suspicion or doubt arises about the police's version of the incident.
A magisterial inquiry conducted by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Kanpur Nagar has a similar finding.
Eight police personnel, including deputy superintendent of police, were killed during a raid on Dubey's house at Bikru village in Kanpur district on the night of July 2-3, 2020.
Later, Dubey was killed in an encounter when a police vehicle carrying him from Ujjain to Kanpur met with an accident and he tried to escape from custody, the police had said.
The commission comprised Justice (Retd) BS Chauhan, Justice (Retd) SK Agarwal and former UP director general of police KL Gupta. It had submitted a 824-page report to the state government on April 21.
The commission said there is "sufficient material on record" to show that Vikas Dubey and his gang were patronised by the local police, revenue and administrative officials.
"He (Vikas) and his associates had been in touch with such officials, and the officers were also communicating with them. If any person lodged any complaint against Vikas or his associates, the complainant was always humiliated by the police. Even if higher authorities gave directions to lodge a complaint, the local police dictated the terms," it said.
Though his name appeared in the list of top 10 criminals in the circle, he did not feature among top 10 criminals of the district, it said, adding that the members of his gang were included in a peace committee to resolve communal disputes.
"His wife was elected as a Zila Panchayat member and his brother's wife was elected as Bikru village's pradhan. They were both living in Lucknow. If any person of the area wanted help from them, he would contact Vikas Dubey and he would resolve their problem. The elected people never came into the picture," the report said.
Most of his family members had arms licences, and recommendations for them had been made by competent authorities by concealing material facts of their involvement in criminal cases. Their position was the same when it came to issuance of passports in their favour and/or grant of fair price shop licences, the commission noted.
"Investigation in any case lodged against them (Dubey's gang) was never impartial. Sections relating to serious offences were dropped before filing the chargesheet. During the trial, most of the witnesses turn hostile. Vikas Dubey and his associates got bail orders from courts easily and quickly as there was no serious opposition by state authorities or government advocates," it added.
"He was involved in 64 criminal cases. State authorities never considered it appropriate to engage a special counsel for his prosecution," it said, adding the state never moved any application for cancellation of bail or approached a superior court for cancellation of any bail orders.
In most of the cases, the high court had granted interim relief to Dubey, staying the proceedings before subordinate courts in criminal cases, and he remained under the protection of such orders for 13-14 years, it said.
The commission said the HC granted bail to Dubey and his associates mainly on the ground that he had been acquitted in a large number of cases, without attempting to know under what circumstances he was acquitted and how and why the witnesses turned hostile in most of the cases.
About the ambush, it said some police personnel posted in Chaubeypur police station had intimated Dubey about the impending raid which gave him an opportunity to call his associates with arms.
"There was a total failure of intelligence unit in Kanpur in collecting information about criminal activities and possession of sophisticated weapons (legal and illegal) by Vikas Dubey and his gang. No proper caution was taken while preparing for the raid, as 38/40 police personnel reached village Bikru and none of them was wearing a bulletproof jacket. Only 18 of them had arms, the rest had gone empty-handed or with sticks," the report said.
The incident occurred because of "poor planning" by the police as it did not assess the situation correctly.
"In fact, it did never expect that Dubey would retaliate with sophisticated weapons and his associates would take positions on on the roofs of houses. They were unaware that some police officials of Chaubeypur had already informed Dubey about the raid," it 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)
