Gauri Lankesh was identified as "Durjan" by crime syndicate that plotted her murder: SIT
Bengaluru, Nov 26: Late journalist-activist Gauri Lankesh was identified as 'Durjan' (evil person) by the crime syndicate that plotted her murder, the Special Investigation Team probing the case has said, adding artificial intelligence systems were used to verify identity of suspected people in the killing.
Inspired by the Goa-based right wing outfit Sanatan Sanstha literature, the syndicate, comprising 18 people, named Lankesh as "Durjan" in August 2016 and started hatching a conspiracy to kill her, the SIT said.
The 55-year-old Lankesh, known for her left-leanings and strident anti-Hindutva views, was shot dead in front of her house here on September 5 last year, triggering national outrage and widespread condemnation.
The SIT said artificial Intelligence systems were used to extract images of suspected people and vehicles to compare with the footage obtained from 200 terabytes of video data from the CCTV cameras installed at major roads and junctions by the Bengaluru City Police.
The SIT said it interviewed and examined more than 2500 people and also traced 10,000 suspected two-wheelers and interviewed their owners.
Experts also analysed lakhs of cell phone tower dumps and mobile phone numbers, it said.
The SIT had filed the first charge sheet in May and the additional one on Friday last.
In August 2016, at a meeting of the Syndicate, the main members identified Lankesh as a "Durjan" "as told in the Kshatra Dharma Sadhana based on her speeches and writings," the SIT said.
They jointly hatched a conspiracy to murder Lankesh in furtherance of the achievement of their goal and executed it in several parts, the SIT said detailing the progress of investigation after filing the additional charge sheet.
Two months after the gang zeroed in on Lankesh, its member Vasudev Suryavamshi alias Mechanic and Sujith Kumar stole a bike and gave it to the alleged mastermind Amol Kale, it said.
Further, Dada alias Nihal, who is at large, assigned H L Suresh to find the address of Lankesh, it said, adding, Amit Baddi and Ganesh Miskin carried out the recce on her.
A fortnight before the killing, syndicate members Parashuram Waghmare and Ganesh Miskin carried out shooting practice in a hilly region near Kiniye in Belagavi, according to the SIT.
The team said Bharat Kurne took Ganesh Miskin, Parshuram Waghmare and Sharad Kalaskar to Kiniye.
Sharad Kalaskar trained Waghmare and Miskin how to shoot using country made pistols.
The shooting practice was last of the final preparations and planning, the SIT said.
According to the investigation team, the first attempt to kill Lankesh was made on September 4 but it did not materialise.
The next day, Ganesh Miskin rode the bike while Waghmare was the pillion rider.
They parked their bike near Lankesh's house and waited for 10 minutes.
Soon after Lankesh came home, Waghmare fired four bullets, killing her instantaneously, the SIT said.
While 16 members have been arrested, two are still at large.
They have been identified as Vikas Patil alias Dada and Rushikesh Deodikar alias Murali, the SIT said.
During the probe, the SIT said, various line of investigations were taken up probing the angle of personal enmity, involvement of left-wing extremism, profession related and right wing extremism.
However, "The first breakthrough in the case happened when the material objects recovered from the scene of crime were analysed at the State Forensic Science Laboratory here.
The forensic ballistic analysis established that the pistol used to murder Lankesh was the same pistol used to murder MM Kalburgi at Dharwad in Karnataka and Govind Pansare at Kolhapur in Maharashtra (all rationalists), the SIT said.
Footage of several CCTV systems within a radius of five km of Lankesh's house were collected and examined minutely for further clues. This included footage of four CCTV cameras installed at Lankesh's house.
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)
