Gadag doctor held in 22-hour 'digital arrest' by cyber fraud gang
Gadag: In a disturbing case of cybercrime, a private doctor from Mulagund town in Karnataka’s Gadag district was subjected to a 22-hour-long digital arrest by a gang of cyber fraudsters posing as officials from a national investigative agency.
The incident took place on June 11 when Dr. S.C. Chavadi received a video call at 3:07 PM from individuals claiming to be officers of the "National Investigation Authority of India." They falsely accused him of being involved in a large-scale money laundering case via a Canara Bank account and claimed that a criminal case had been registered in his name at the Kaloba Police Station in Mumbai.
Despite Dr. Chavadi not having any account with Canara Bank, the fraudsters alleged that an arrest warrant had been issued against him. They instructed him to gather and share details of all his financial and property-related documents and warned him that he was under active investigation. To lend credibility to their claims, they even showed him the name and photograph of a local police officer from Mulagund.
In what is now being described as a digital arrest, Dr. Chavadi was kept under psychological pressure through continuous video calls for nearly 22 hours. An individual claiming to be an Inspector named Vijaykumar initially interrogated him and justified the remote questioning due to the doctor’s age. He was warned to remain silent about the matter and act normally with his family, as dangerous criminals, allegedly led by one Naresh Goyal, were "monitoring" him and could be near his home.
The next day around noon, another person claiming to be DCP Dayanayak resumed the video interrogation, telling Dr. Chavadi that the matter would be taken to the Supreme Court and that he would eventually need to appoint legal representation.
The ordeal ended only when locals, sensing something was wrong, alerted the police and rushed to Dr. Chavadi’s residence. Upon their arrival, they attempted to force open the door, prompting Dr. Chavadi to unlock it. As soon as a local police officer, CPI Sangamesh Shivayogi, began speaking over video call, the fraudsters abruptly terminated the call and vanished.
A formal complaint has been registered at the Gadag Cyber Crime Police Station, and investigations are ongoing.
CPI Shivayogi urged citizens not to fall prey to such digital arrests, which are emerging as a new form of cyber intimidation. “People must remain calm and report any suspicious digital communication to the nearest police station immediately. Never share personal information or documents over video calls from unknown sources,” 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)
