"Out of bounds": Curious case of 2 "banned-entry" candidates in K'taka Assembly polls
Bengaluru (PTI): Two "banned-entry" candidates Vinay Kulkarni and G Janardhana Reddy present a picture of a peculiar case in the run-up to the May 10 Karnataka Assembly elections.
While the Congress candidate Kulkarni can't go to Dharwad, the constituency he is contesting from, following a court-imposed ban, Reddy fielded his wife in Ballari city as he is barred from entry there.
Kulkarni's wife Shivaleela filed the nomination on his behalf.
"Our supporters are backing us with a firm belief that 'Saheb' will come here. In his absence I am seeking the blessings of the voters asking them treat me as 'Saheb'," she told reporters.
Since video and phone calls are the only means to reach out to his voters, Kulkarni in a video message said, "I will immerse myself for you and my constituency. You are my strength who backed me today."
Former Minister Kulkarni was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in November 2020 in connection with the murder of BJP leader and Zilla Panchayat member Yogeshgouda Goudar in June 2016.
He was granted bail by the Supreme Court on the condition that he would not be allowed to enter Dharwad, the district known as cultural capital of Karnataka as it produced acclaimed literatteurs and music maestros, without the permission of the jurisdictional court.
The jurisdictional Special Court in Bengaluru had rejected his request requesting entry, after which he had approached the High Court where his petition was dismissed by Justice K Natarajan on Friday.
Kulkarni's advocate had argued that he needs to be in the constituency to campaign.
The HC observed that the party, which gave him ticket to contest, should have known that he was forbidden by the court from entering Dharwad.
The case of former mining baron Janardhana Reddy of the famed 'Reddy brothers of Ballari' is not much different compared to Kulkarni.
A former BJP minister, Reddy has been barred by the apex court from entering Ballari in Karnataka and Anantapur and YSR Kadapa districts in Andhra Pradesh in connection with illegal mining case.
Reddy had severed ties with the BJP and floated a new party Kalyana Rajya Pragathi Paksha (KRPP). His brothers G Karunakara Reddy and G Somashekhara Reddy are with the BJP and are contesting from Ballari City and Harapanahalli, respectively, on the party ticket.
Since he is not allowed to enter Ballari, Reddy chose to contest from neighbouring Gangavathi in Koppal district.
The KRPP leader has fielded his wife Lakshmi Aruna G from Ballari City constituency against his brother Somashekhara Reddy.
Lakshmi Aruna was in tears on the day of filing her nomination papers as she missed her husband, who could not accompany with her.
She sought the blessings of voters to complete the projects such as ring road, airport, superspecialty hospital and drinking water, which Janardhana Reddy had started but "halted midway."
Janardhana Reddy said: "I am concentrating only in those constituencies wherever I have the scope of winning the election. My target is to win 20 to 28 seats. I am building party at the booth level with the available strength," he had told reporters.
Barred entry, Reddy cannot canvass for his wife or any other candidates that the party has fielded in Ballari district it considers as its stronghold.
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)
