Karnataka HC allows Ganesh Chaturthi celebration at Chamrajpet Idgah Maidan
Bengaluru, Aug 26: A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on Friday modified an interim order of a Single Judge Bench on the Chamrajpet Idgha playground dispute, saying religious and cultural activities can be allowed by the government there, but for a limited period from August 31.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the government to take a decision on granting permission for Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at the disputed Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru's Chamarajpet.
The Single Judge had, on Thursday, ordered that the 2-acre of land should be used only as a playground and Muslims should be allowed to pray there on only two festivals- Bakrid and Ramzan- till the case was disposed.
Today, the State government approached the Division Bench, headed by the Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, with an appeal and he said religious and cultural activities can be allowed by the government on the said land.
"The Indian society comprises religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities. The Constitution of India itself fosters brotherhood amongst various sections. The principal of religious toleration is the characteristic of Indian civilisation. We, therefore, at this stage, in the peculiar facts of the case, modify the interim order dated August 25, 2008 and permit the government to consider and pass appropriate orders on the applications received by the Deputy Commissioner seeking use of the land in question for holding religious and cultural activities for a limited period from August 31, 2022 onwards," the court said.
The case was adjourned to September 9.
The Hindu organisations sought permission for holding the Ganesh Chaturthi festival at the maidan.
The Joint Commissioner (west) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had ruled that the property belonged to the Revenue Department following the civic body's Chief Commissioner's directions to verify the ownership of the land.
However, the Karnataka State Board of AUQAF and District Waqf Officer, Bengaluru challenged the August 7 order of the Joint Commissioner before the Single Judge, who had ordered the status quo.
The original property dispute dates back to 1955 and the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the Waqf in 1965.
The decades-old dispute over Idgah Maidan had once again come to the fore earlier this year, when some Hindu outfits sought BBMP's permission to hold events there.
This resulted in two contrary sets of documents emerging -- the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf presented a 1965 gazette notifying the land as Wakf property and the 1974 City Survey records and all other civic records thereafter showed the land to be a playground.
In the meantime, following the BBMP order, several Hindu organisations announced they would celebrate Independence Day on the ground. Also, local Congress MLA B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan had announced they would go ahead and hoist the tricolour there.
However, the State Revenue Department organised the Independence Day event and an assistant commissioner-rank official hoisted the flag on August 15 for the first time at the Idgah maidan.
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)
