Appointments, lack of minority representation in Karnataka CMO raises concerns
Bengaluru: The appointment of Dr. Rajneesh Goel as Additional Chief Secretary to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has sparked debates due to concerns about his previous actions. As the former Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department), Dr. Goel has faced criticism for allegedly neglecting to take legal action in significant cases during the BJP government's tenure. These cases include the PSI scam, allegations of 40% commission in the Public Works Department (PWD), hate speeches inciting communal violence, and remarks urging violence against Siddaramaiah, likening him to Tipu Sultan.
N Jayaram, who served as Secretary of the Revenue Department, has also faced scrutiny for granting gomala land illegally to the Sangh Parivar's Rashtrothana Parishat and Jana Seva Trust. Several locations, including Haveri, Kalaburagi, Chikkamagaluru, and Mysuru, were involved in these questionable land grants. Despite these allegations, Jayaram has been appointed as Secretary to the Chief Minister, raising concerns about the fairness of the appointment process in the new government.
The lack of officers from minority communities in the Chief Minister's office has drawn attention, despite the significant contribution of minority community votes to the Congress party's victory in the recent elections. Critics highlight the absence of representation and demand the appointment of eligible Muslim or Christian officers. Concerns are also being raised about appointment of officers from Kuruba Community to which Chief Minister belongs, as Joint Secretaries and Officers on Special duty.
The objection to Dr. Goel's appointment stems from criminal cases filed against numerous activists associated with the BJP and Hindutva organizations like the Bajrang Dal. Although the cases were pending in court, Dr. Goel submitted a file to the Cabinet advocating for the withdrawal of these cases. Moreover, Dr. Goel's office refused to provide information regarding the withdrawal of cases against the PFI and the SDPI activists, despite Siddaramaiah's inquiry during his time as Leader of the Opposition. Additionally, Dr. Goel did not instruct to take action against Minister Dr. Ashwath Narayan, who made provocative statements inciting violence against Siddaramaiah.
During a joint meeting with top police officials, chaired by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, concerns were raised about the Police Department's failure to address hate speeches and incitements to violence against Siddaramaiah, resulting in societal turmoil and unrest. The meeting also highlighted the issue of police officers harassing Priyank Kharge, who exposed documents related to the PSI scam. Dr. Goel, in his capacity as Additional Chief Secretary to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, attended the meeting. The lack of opposition to Dr. Goel's appointment despite these controversies has become a subject of discussion. Siddaramaiah had previously accused the Police Department of corruption in officer transfers and delays in obtaining statements from ADGP Amrit Paul, who was suspected of involvement in the PSI scam. However, as Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Dr. Goel did not take any action in response to these allegations.
The appointment of N Jayaram, who served as Secretary of the Revenue Department under the BJP government, as Secretary to the Chief Minister has garnered mixed responses from officers. During Jayaram's tenure, illegal grants of gomala land were made to the Sangh Parivar's Jana Seva Trust and the Rashtrothana Parishat. The Jana Seva Trust was granted 35 acres of land at a 5% rate, resulting in a loss of over Rs. 139 crores for the government. Siddaramaiah, who previously expressed ideological differences with the preceding BJP government, has now appointed an officer involved in granting fertile land illegally to Sangh Parivar-affiliated organizations as his secretary, leading to further discussions and debates.
In summary, the appointment of Dr. Rajneesh Goel as Additional Chief Secretary, the appointment of N Jayaram as Secretary to the Chief Minister, and the lack of representation from minority communities in the Chief Minister's office have raised concerns and sparked debates.
About 90 per cent of the Muslims and Christians have voted for the Congress in this year’s elections and have played a major role in getting the Congress to power in the state. There are many eligible and capable officers who are either Muslims or Christians. Questions are now being raised on the sidelining of such officers for appointment to the posts in the Chief Minister’s office. The Chief Minister should pay attention to the matter immediately and appoint eligible Muslim or Christian officers, demanded Ida Margaret, General Secretary of the Indian Christian United Forum.
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)
