1984 anti-Sikh riots verdict: Sack Kamal Nath, Sambit Patra demands in Bengaluru
Bengaluru, Dec 17: Hailing the conviction of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case, the BJP Monday demanded the removal of Kamal Nath as Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister who they alleged was involved in the riots.
The demand came on a day when Nath took oath as the state's 18th chief minister, while Kumar was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court.
"The way Delhi High Court verdict has come indicting Sajjan Kumar, it is very clear that it is not an order against Sajjan Kumar but an order against the Congress party," BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra told reporters here.
"Look at the double face of the Congress party. Only today the Congress has made him (Kamal Nath) the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh. Rahul Gandhi should immediately remove him from his position," Patra added.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader alleged that the Nanavati Commission, constituted by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to probe the riots, had named Nath with evidence.
Patra also sought Rahul Gandhi's resignation as the party president as the judgment was also against the Congress, which, he alleged, had shielded the accused for decades.
While Sajjan Kumar has been imprisoned for life, "Gandhi has been imprisoned in his own conscience as it will continuously prick him all through his life, that his party members massacred thousands of Sikhs and he kept quiet," he said.
"I want to tell Rahul Gandhi to listen to your conscience and resign as the Congress chief," Patra demanded.
On the issue of Rafale fighter jet deal, Patra said truth had triumphed after the Supreme Court set aside the PILs challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 fighter jets.
The BJP leader said the PILs were "Politically Inclined Litigations".
"Rahul Gandhi has lied through his teeth on the Rafale issue. The three Supreme Court judges in their 29-page judgment have categorically concluded that they did not find any reason for any intervention by the court after its findings in all three aspects and having heard the matter in detail," Patra said.
The three allegations, Patra said, were faulty pricing, faulty procurement and commercial favouritism benefiting industrialist Anil Ambani.
Patra said the three charges were rejected by the top court which also examined the pricing details and did not find anything wrong.
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)
