Criteria, frameworks being decided for implementation of guarantees, says Minister Priyank Kharge
Bengaluru (PTI): With pressure mounting on the Congress government in Karnataka to implement the five 'guarantees' as promised to the people ahead of Assembly polls, State's Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Minister Priyank Kharge on Wednesday said criteria and frameworks are being decided for its implementation.
He said the criterion has to be fixed to implement the guarantees, as tax-payers money is involved.
In view of the implementation of five guarantee schemes, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is today holding a meeting with all the Ministers of his cabinet and senior officials of the concerned departments at Vidhana Soudha, the seat of state secretariat and legislature, here.
The decision on implementation of guarantees is likely to be taken at the cabinet meeting on Thursday.
"Every scheme is based on a criterion, it is your (public) money, tax payers money is involved. We will have to put criteria. Tell me which scheme of the central- Modi government is free?" Kharge asked.
Speaking to reporters here, he said, "there will be criteria and we will ensure that everyone is benefited. Is it wrong to give priority to BPL (below poverty line), the government is for the poor."
"How to implement Gruha Jyoti, Gruha Lakshmi, YuvaNidhi -- the criterion and framework will be decided by today and tomorrow, there is no need to worry," he added.
The Congress had promised to implement the guarantees' 200 units of free power to all households (Gruha Jyoti), Rs 2,000 monthly assistance to the woman head of every family (Gruha Lakshmi), 10 kg of rice free to every member of a BPL household (Anna Bhagya), Rs 3,000 every month for unemployed graduate youth and Rs 1,500 for unemployed diploma holders (both in the age group of 18-25) (YuvaNidhi), and free travel for women in public transport buses (Shakti), on the very first day of assuming power in the state.
There is mounting pressure on the new government from opposition parties and various sections of people from across the state, to fulfill its five guarantees as promised ahead of polls.
Opposition BJP and JD(S) have accused the Congress of trying to "cheat" voters after coming to power by trying to attach conditions or criterion to the guarantees for their implementation, which were not mentioned ahead of polls.
Asked how the government will mobilise resources, the Minister said, "we will do it. First of all -- it is because of the central government and the double engine (BJP at both centre and state) government that was there -- our financial situation has worsened."
"Our GST share has not come, there was financial mismanagement during COVID-19, because of this Kannadigas are in debt today, I had raised this issue several times in the Assembly in the past," he said, now that our government has come, the priority will be to give financial stability to the state and its people.
After having accorded in-principal approval for the guarantees in the first cabinet meeting on May 20, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had said they would "most likely" be implemented after the next Cabinet meeting. He had also said that initial estimates indicate it would cost the exchequer Rs 50,000 crore annually.
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)
