Dharmasthala Mass Burial: Earth work was carried out at marked site number 1, says Sujatha Bhat
Mangaluru: In back-to-back press releases issued on July 29 and July 30 by Advocate Manjunath N, Sujatha Bhat has expressed her gratitude to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) for its dedicated efforts in the ongoing exhumation process related to the Dharmasthala case.
According to the first press statement issued on July 29, Sujatha Bhat thanked the SIT for its meticulous work during the exhumation at Site No. 1, which was carried out earlier that day. The statement mentions that a total of 14 sites were identified on July 28, and the operation at Site No. 1 marked the first official step in the process. It also noted that although the exhumation did not yield any positive results, Sujatha Bhat remains undeterred. She conveyed her full confidence in the SIT, appreciating the seriousness with which the investigation is being conducted, particularly the involvement of senior officials including the Assistant Commissioner.
The statement further mentioned that earthwork had reportedly taken place at Site No. 1 around five years ago.
In the second press release issued on July 30, Sujatha Bhat’s legal counsel shared further insights reportedly based on information from reliable sources. According to this information, the complainant-witness had provided specific details about the number of bodies believed to be buried at each of the marked sites. The data shared through the press note are as follows:
Site No. 1: 2 bodies
Site No. 2: 2 bodies
Site No. 3: 2 bodies
Sites No. 4 and 5: 6 bodies
Sites No. 6, 7, and 8: 8 bodies
Site No. 9: 6 to 7 bodies
Site No. 10: 3 bodies
Site No. 11: 9 bodies
Site No. 12: 4 to 5 bodies
Site No. 13: The highest number among the currently marked sites
The press note also claimed that a separate site, not among the 13 marked locations, is said to contain an even higher number of bodies as per the complainant-witness. This site is reportedly located further away and is expected to be taken up after the current round of exhumations concludes.
Sujatha Bhat reiterated through the press statement that for her, this process is not just a legal investigation but a personal and emotional journey in search of truth and closure, not only for her daughter but also for many other missing individuals. She was quoted in the release saying, “I will watch out for each and every exhumation. My heart aches for answers, and I have full faith that the SIT’s painstaking work will unearth the truth, no matter how long it takes or how deep they must dig.”
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)
