Mangaluru Mob Lynching: Police tried to bury case, suspension order confirms cover-up attempt
_vb_37.jpeg)
Mangaluru: The police department’s failure in handling the brutal mob lynching of Wayanad native Ashraf in Mangaluru has now been officially confirmed, with a suspension order of three officers clearly exposing an attempted cover-up by officers of the Mangaluru Rural Police Station.
The suspension order, issued by Mangaluru City Police Commissioner Anupam Agarwal, holds three personnel — Inspector Shivakumar K.R., Head Constable Chandra P., and Civil Police Constable Yallaling — responsible for dereliction of duty in the chilling lynching case. Their actions, or lack thereof, reflect a shocking level of indifference, negligence, and an attempt to mislead both the public and higher authorities.
Despite clear signs and local testimonies pointing to a mob lynching, , the police had initially tried to portray it as an unnatural death. This deliberate misrepresentation appears to be a calculated move to water down the severity of the crime. This has now been confirmed, with a clear explanation provided in the suspension order.
The suspension order points out that the three officers failed to carry out their basic duty — to inform superiors and to register a case based on the gravity of the crime. Instead, they chose to downplay the matter, giving the accused more time to escape scrutiny.
What the Suspension Order Reveals:
The facts outlined in the suspension order are damning. On April 27, between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM, an unidentified body was found near a field behind Bhatra Kallurti Daivasthana in Kudupu. A complaint led to a case being filed as a simple UDR by the Mangaluru Rural Police Station.
According to the suspension order, the reason for suspending the three officials has been clearly stated. Based on a report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, South Sub-Division, Mangaluru City Police, a complaint was registered on 27 April between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM regarding an unidentified body found near the field behind Bhatra Kallurti Daivasthana in Kudupu village, Mangaluru taluk. The case was registered at the Mangaluru Rural Police Station as an Unnatural Death Report (UDR). Following a complaint filed by a person named Deepak on 28 April, a case (Crime No. 37/2025) was registered under sections 189(2), 191(1)(3), 115(2), 103(2), 240, and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to Deepak’s phone call to the police, during a cricket match being played on the field, a group of players and spectators attacked the unidentified individual. The inspector and staff of Mangaluru Rural Police Station had received this information.
Inspector Shivakumar K.R. reportedly chose not to alert his superiors and went ahead with registering it as a UDR, essentially trying to sweep the incident under the carpet.
Head Constable Chandra P., attached to the Intelligence Wing, was informed by Deepak of the Mangaluru Traffic East Police Station but failed to follow up or report the matter further.
Civil Police Constable Yallaling, who was on beat duty at the site of the match, also failed to report the mob violence he witnessed, thus compounding the department’s collective failure.
These officers weren’t just negligent — they actively suppressed evidence of a murder. Despite having access to eyewitness information and being present at the scene, none of them acted to protect the victim or uphold the law.
All three have now been suspended for gross negligence and misconduct. However, the suspension alone does not undo the damage caused — valuable hours were lost, and the integrity of the investigation was compromised.
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)
