K'taka HC allows D K Shivakumar to file memo seeking withdrawal of his appeal in DA case
Bengaluru (PTI): The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday allowed Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar to withdraw his appeal against a single judge order over the issue of sanction to the CBI to prosecute him in assets case.
The court allowed the deputy CM to file a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal filed by him challenging the earlier order.
The single judge bench had refused to quash the sanction granted by the previous government to the CBI to prosecute him.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi who appeared on video conference arguing for Shivakumar said that since the sanction that is under challenge has been withdrawn by the incumbent government, the issue has become infructuous and therefore he has instructions to withdraw it.
"The practical issue is very simple. The Writ is filed challenging a sanction. Today, the sanction under challenge is withdrawn. Somebody will challenge, some will not (the sanction) but that is not of concern today. It (Appeal) is infructuous. It is liable to be allowed to be withdrawn," he argued.
Karnataka cabinet headed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on November 23 held that the previous BJP government's move to give consent to the CBI to investigate the disproportionate assets case against Shivakumar, also the State Congress president, was not in accordance with law and decided to withdraw the sanction.
Another senior counsel Kapil Sibal who appeared for the state argued that "at the moment we have withdrawn consent. If the CBI thinks they have jurisdiction they can continue. As far as I am concerned, Section 6 of the Statute is very clear. If they want to challenge it they are welcome to. But the statute does not give them power. If they think they have the power they are welcome to challenge it (Statute). As far as I am concerned, they have no jurisdiction."
The counsel for the CBI argued that "whether they can overcome the order of the single judge is the question."
"Whether such an order (withdrawing consent) could be passed after an FIR is filed and investigation is going on."
The CBI counsel also submitted that as per a Supreme Court order, withdrawing consent to the CBI is "Prospective in nature and investigation already underway have to be completed."
The Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit however said that "But it has to be challenged. If the order of the government is unsustainable, somebody can challenge it."
The HC said that it cannot expand the scope of the appeal to decide on whether the withdrawal of the sanction is good or bad in law. "It is not in our domain to ask the CBI why this order is not challenged," the court said.
The counsels were given one hour to file a memo to withdraw the appeal. The HC is on a recess and is expected to give its order on the memo later in the day.
A single judge bench had earlier dismissed Shivakumar's petition challenging the sanction of September 25, 2019 granted by the government to prosecute him. Shivakumar then challenged it before the division bench which had stayed the single judge order.
The CBI had filed an application for vacation of this stay. The agency also approached the Supreme Court which directed the HC to hear the application filed by the CBI seeking vacation of stay preferably within two weeks.
Based on the Income Tax Department's search operations in Shivakumar's home and offices in 2017, the Enforcement Directorate started its own probe against him.
Based on the ED investigation, the CBI sought sanction from the State Government to file FIR against him, for which the sanction was given the sanction on September 25, 2019. The CBI had filed an FIR against Shivakumar on October 3, 2020.
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)
