Trial in 2008 Malegaon blast case over, NIA seeks `commensurate' punishment for Pragya Thakur, other
Mumbai (PTI): Almost 17 years after a blast killed six people and left over 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, the trial in the case got over on Saturday with the special NIA court adjourning the matter to May 8 for judgement.
The National Investigation Agency, which probed the case, sought "commensurate punishment" for the accused who include former MP and BJP leader Pragya Thakur.
On Saturday, the prosecution filed its final written arguments, marking the end of the trial, presided over by A K Lahoti, special judge for NIA cases.
The prosecution submitted that the blast in Malegaon -- a town with a sizable Muslim population -- was orchestrated by the conspirators to terrorize a section of Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tensions, and threaten the state's internal security.
Six people were killed and over 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008.
Besides Pragya Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni are the accused in the case, charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code.
The NIA said in its final submission that based on "relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence" it "conclusively and cogently" established the crucial circumstances to form a complete chain of events.
It was established that the accused were "directly involved in the part of larger conspiracy hatched amongst themselves and (were) instrumental in causing a bomb explosion," the document said.
The blast took place during the holy month of Ramzan, just before the Navratri festival, the NIA pointed out, adding that the intention of the accused was to strike terror in a section of the Muslim community.
The act was part of "their larger conspiracy" to "establish 'Aryawrat (Hindu Rashtra)", the prosecution contended.
It urged the court to convict the accused "for commission of serious terror offences" and award "commensurate punishment" in the interest of justice.
During the trial, the prosecution presented 323 witnesses, of which 34 turned hostile.
The case was initially probed by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS), Maharashtra, before being transferred to NIA in 2011.
The central agency in its charge sheet filed in 2016 gave a clean chit to Thakur and three other accused- Shyam Sahu, Praveen Takalki and Shivnarayan Kalsangra- saying it found no evidence against them.
The court, however, discharged Sahu, Kalsangra and Takalki but ruled that Pragya Thakur will have to face the trial.
The charges framed against the accused on October 30, 2018, included sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) of the UAPA and IPC sections 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups), among others.
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)
