Karnataka High Court rejects Roopa Moudgil’s plea for IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri’s call records
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by senior IPS officer Roopa Moudgil seeking the Call Data Records (CDR) of IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, terming the plea unnecessary and irrelevant to the defamation case pending against her.
Roopa had earlier approached the magistrate court requesting directions to telecom companies to produce Sindhuri’s call records. The request was linked to a defamation suit filed by Rohini Sindhuri after Roopa allegedly posted objectionable material against her on Facebook. The magistrate court had rejected the plea, following which Roopa moved the High Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum upheld the lower court’s decision, observing that the IPS officer’s petition was flawed and appeared to be an attempt to delay the trial. The bench noted that the case pertained to allegations of defamation and not to issues that required CDR examination.
The court said Roopa had accused Sindhuri of tarnishing her reputation and even linked her to the death of a police officer in her posts, which were the basis of the defamation complaint. While Roopa’s counsel had sought Sindhuri’s two-year CDR to establish her alleged contact with Munish Moudgil, Roopa’s husband, the bench pointed out that Roopa had the liberty to produce Munish’s records and examine him as a defense witness.
Senior advocate D.R. Ravishankar, representing Roopa, argued that Sindhuri had admitted to speaking with Munish but had also claimed she did not know his phone number. He contended that only Sindhuri’s call records could reveal the truth and provide details about the calls and their locations. He further said the CDR was crucial for Roopa to defend herself, but the magistrate court dismissed her plea without explaining why it was irrelevant.
Countering this, Sindhuri’s counsel C.V. Nagesh maintained that the case stemmed from a private complaint over defamatory posts, and repeated petitions from Roopa were aimed at delaying proceedings. He added that the High Court conciliation bench had previously fined Roopa Rs 10,000 for similar tactics and even gave her an option to test her claims in court.
Nagesh stressed that the law does not permit seeking CDRs of individuals as it amounts to a violation of privacy rights. He argued that if Roopa wanted to establish communication between her husband and Sindhuri, she could rely on Munish’s call records and subject him to cross-examination instead of demanding Sindhuri’s records.
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)
