K'taka HC dismisses DK Shivakumar's petition challenging sanction to prosecute him
Bengaluru, Apr 20: The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday dismissed the petition by state Congress president D K Shivakumar challenging the sanction given by the State Government to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for prosecuting him.
Following a request by the central agency, the State Government had given the sanction on September 25, 2019, based on which it had filed an FIR against him on October 3, 2020.
Shivakumar had challenged both the sanction and the FIR in two separate petitions before the High Court.
The court had earlier this week reserved its judgment on the petition challenging the sanction.
On Wednesday, it had adjourned the hearing of the other petition challenging the FIR to May 30. On Thursday evening, the single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition challenging the sanction.
The Income Tax Department had conducted a search and seizure operation in the offices and residence of Shivakumar in 2017. Based on it, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) started its own probe against Shivakumar. Following the ED investigation, the CBI sought sanction from the State Government to file an FIR against him.
Shivakumar had challenged the sanction on grounds that this was a politically motivated FIR, and three earlier FIRs have already been filed against him in relation to disproportionate income.
Since he was an MLA, the permission of the Speaker of the Assembly had to be obtained which was not done in this case. The Government had also not mentioned the reasons for granting the sanction.
The CBI had objected to the petition stating that the accused cannot demand which agency should conduct investigation against him.
It argued that since the CBI was enacted under a special act, there was no need to mention the reasons to grant sanction for prosecution.
It was claimed that 90 per cent of the investigation was complete. The CBI had also submitted a status report on the investigation to the court. Since it was a special case related to disproportionate income the petition was sought to be dismissed.
Shivakumar has been charged under Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
While the High Court dictated the dismissal of Shivakumar's petition on Thursday evening, the copy of the judgment is awaited.
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_28.jpeg)
