No meaning in allegations, complain to Lokayukta with evidence: CM Bommai to contractors association
CM Bommai dismisses 40% commission charges by contractors’ association
Bengaluru, Aug 24: Trying to question the credibility of the "40 per cent commission" charge against his government by the state contractors association as it was made after meeting the Leader of Opposition, Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Wednesday said there is no meaning to such claims.
Any baseless statement will be nothing but motivated, Bommai said, adding that he would advise the association to give a complaint to the Lokayukta if there is anything specific with evidence.
"First of all, the association headed by D Kempanna is not the only association of contractors. It is one among several other such associations. Secondly, there is no meaning in his allegations. It should be noted that he has spoken after meeting (Leader of Opposition) Siddaramaiah," Bommai said in response to a question regarding the allegations.
Speaking to reporters here, he said, following the concerns raised by the association last time, the government had made certain orders, and even going a step ahead as it constituted a tender scrutiny committee headed by a retired judge, which no other state has done.
"If they have any specific complaint, they can go before the Lokayukta and give a complaint. The Lokayukta has full freedom, it will investigate and we will take strict action against the guilty if any," he added.
An association delegation led by its President D Kempanna on Wednesday met Congress leader Siddaramaiah, after which the former alleged that the whole system was corrupt and accused ministers and MLAs of demanding a percentage in commission.
Kempanna said the association would be writing another letter to the Prime Minister in this regard and that it will continue its fight demanding an independent judicial probe.
The association president even specifically charged the Kolar district in-charge Minister (Munirathna), without taking his name, accusing him of threatening officials to collect and get the money.
Responding to a question on Kempanna specifically pointing at the Kolar district in-charge Minister (Munirathna), the Chief Minister said, "Whoever it is, with specific case and incident along with evidence, let them give a complaint, and it will be investigated."
Regarding the association stating that they will write a letter to the Prime Minister, Bommai said everyone has the right to write a letter to the Prime Minister, but other than that there is a system in place to investigate corruption.
"After the recent court order (High Court), Lokayukta is fully independent, there are judicial officers there. Let them give a complaint, it will be investigated," he added.
The association had earlier written a letter to the Prime Minister in this regard in July last year.
In their letter to Modi, the association had claimed "harassment" by ministers, elected representatives and others, accusing them of demanding up to 30 per cent of the tender amount for approving a contract, and 5-6 per cent towards release of 'Letter of Credit' against pending bills.
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)
