Four defiant Cong MLAs absent themselves from assembly
Bengaluru, Feb 6: Striking a defiant note, the four Congress MLAs who had failed to turn up at the January 18 CLP meeting, remained absent on the first day of the Karnataka assembly session, which began here Wednesday.
The MLAs Ramesh Jarkiholi, Mahesh Kumtalli, Umesh Jadhav, and Nagendra did not ascribe any reason for not attending the opening day's session.
On Tuesday, a whip had been issued to all MLAs of the ruling JDS-Congress coalition to be present in the assembly on all days of the budget session.
The whip was seen as a move by the ruling coalition to pre-empt any plans of disgruntled Congress MLAs on the radar of BJP to stay away from the assembly and pose a threat to the stability of the government.
Meanwhile,former chief minister and Congress Legislature Party leader Siddaramaiah served a second notice to the MLAs who did not turn up for the CLP meeting.
While the first notice was served on January 28, the second was given on Monday.
"Yes, Siddaramaiah has served notices on the four Congress MLAs," said a source close to the Congress leader.
Siddaramaiah noted that despite the earlier notice served to them, seeking an explanation for failing to attend the CLP meeting, the MLAs had not turned up.
"Even though nine days have passed (since the first notice was served), you did not give any explanation about your absence.
Hence you are directed to meet me at the CLP office before or during the assembly session on February 6 and give your explanation," Siddaramaiah said in a letter to Mahesh Kumtalli.
"The contents of the letters to other three MLAs is identical," said a source in Congress.
The four MLAs were allegedly upset with the party for not being inducted into the Kumaraswamy cabinet.
Ramesh Jarkiholi remained inaccessible to party leaders and had his mobile phone was switched off.
The Congress-JD(S) coalition government had received a setback on January 15 when two independent MLAs H Nagesh and R Shankar withdrew support to the Kumaraswamy government.
Dealing a further blow to Congress, reports emerged that at least 20 Congress MLAs too had gone missing just around the time when 104 BJP MLAs were huddled in a resort in Gurugram.
Congress and the JD(S) had alleged that the BJP indulged in horse trading to pull down the government.
Congress had, however claimed that all its MLAs were intact and nobody would defect.
To substantiate its claim and to put up a show of unity to allay doubts, the Congress decided to convene a meeting of fits MLAs on January 18.
However, the four MLAs did not show up.
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)
