Section of JD(S) workers in Channapatna oppose Kumaraswamy's likely move to contest from Mandya
Bengaluru: Speculations within the JD(S) that its state President H D Kumaraswamy is likely to contest from the Mandya Lok Sabha segment, has led to opposition from a section of its workers in Channapatna Assembly constituency that he currently represents. The party’s core committee leaders are likely to meet here on Tuesday to decide on the candidates for Kolar, Hassan and Mandya, the three seats from where the regional party will be contesting, as part of the seat-sharing deal with the BJP.
With speculation rife that Kumaraswamy is most likely to contest from Mandya, party workers and leaders from Channapatna met him on Monday and demanded that he should not ”abandon them” and should continue to represent them in the Assembly.
However, JD(S) leaders and workers, and also a section of the BJP in Mandya want him to contest from the Lok Sabha segment, according to sources.
”…naturally there is a strong opinion among the party workers that Kumaranna (Kumaraswamy) should not leave Channapatna. Party supremo H D Deve Gowda is in Hassan, they (party leaders from Channapatna) will go and speak to him as well, give us some time (to decide),” Kumaraswamy’s son and Yuva JD(S) leader Nikhil Kumaraswamy said.
Speaking to reporters here, he however did not wish to comment on a question about some party workers asking him to contest from the Mandya Lok Sabha seat instead and let Kumaraswamy continue as Channapatna MLA.
”Tomorrow, the core committee members have been called, after discussion there, the party leadership will decide on a future course of action….In old Mysuru region naturally there is a feeling that if Kumaranna contests in this Lok Sabha polls it will enthuse our cadre, similar is the feeling among BJP cadre. We will make a decision after discussions tomorrow,” he added.
Names of Nikhil Kumaraswamy and senior party leader and former MP C S Puttaraju were also doing the rounds as JD(S) candidate from Mandya.
Multilingual actress turned-politician Sumalatha Ambareesh, an independent candidate backed by the BJP, had won the seat in 2019 Lok Sabha polls, by defeating JD(S)’ Nikhil Kumaraswamy. She had also sought a BJP ticket for re-election from the seat.
However, BJP General Secretary in-charge of elections in Karnataka, Dr Radha Mohan Das Agarwal on Saturday said the JD(S) would contest from Mandya, Hassan and Kolar Lok Sabha constituencies.
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)
