Eshwarappa quashes allegations of demanding commission from Hindu Yuva Vahini National Secretary
Says, my department never approved work he claims to have completed
Bengaluru: Karnataka RDPR Minister K. Eshwarappa has said that he has filed a defamation case against the civil contractor and Hindu Yuva Vahini National Secretary Santhosh Patil who alleged that the minister was demanding commission for the payment of completed road works.
Reacting to the allegation labeled against him by Patil, the Minister said he did not demand a commission for releasing the payment of completed work and that the allegations made against him are fabricated.
“The allegation against me about having asked the commission to release the payment for the remainder of the completed work is fabricated. I have filed a defamation case against the Belagavi-based contractor and ‘Hindu Vahini’ National Secretary Santhosh. K. Patil who has made this accusation against me”, he informed.
Earlier on Monday, Patil wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking his intervention in the matter adding that he was under pressure from his creditors and if the issue is not resolved soon, he will have no options left but to commit suicide.
In his letter, Patil had alleged that Eshwarappa and his associates were demanding commission for releasing his payment of Rs. 4 crores for completed road work even after a year of completion of the work. He also alleged that the Minister was not releasing the work order for the same.
Eshwarappa however, has claimed that Patil had not sought any grant from his department and that the government had not approved any work that Patil claims to have completed.
“Santhosh K. Patil did not seek any grant from the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and the government did not provide approval to undertake the said work. The department had not issued any direction regarding this construction work and neither were the administrative grants given. Construction work as said by Santhosh K. Patil has not been implemented at the Hindalaga village. No government agency has provided technical grants or taken charge of this construction work. The department head has provided clarification that therefore, the matter of releasing funds does not arise”, Eeshwarappa said.
“It has come to my attention that on March 9, Santhosh K. Patil had fabricated allegations against me on TV. In the background of this, on March 10, I have registered a defamation lawsuit against Santhosh K. Patil at the 6th Main Metropolitan Court. He will be issued a notice tomorrow”, Eeshwarappa said.
He further added that Patil is not a BJP activist and that there is no connection between him and the party.
Responding to the question of the media, the Minister said, “I don’t know who is behind the conspiracy of accusing me of demanding commission. After contacting the party’s Belagavi District President today morning and inquiring, I learned that Santhosh K. Patil and BJP have no connection. He is not our activist or worker”, he said.
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)
