Siddaramaiah challenges Sitharaman’s claim on disbursal of recommended grants
In a robust response to the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s denial of recommended grants for Karnataka, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah reiterated the state's demand for its rightful share as recommended by the 15th Finance Commission (15 FC).
Expressing deep concern over the Finance Ministry's refusal to acknowledge the recommended allocations, Siddaramaiah emphasized the significance of adhering to federal principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Addressing the issue through his social media platform, Siddaramaiah highlighted the interim report of the 15 FC for the fiscal year 2020-21, which sanctioned significant sums for Karnataka, Telangana, and Mizoram. He emphasized that these grants were not bestowed out of favoritism but to ensure equitable distribution among states, safeguarding against a decrease in their share of devolution compared to the previous year.
Siddaramaiah further shed light on the final report of the 15 FC, which recommended substantial funds for Karnataka, including allocations for water body revival and infrastructure projects like the Peripheral Ring Road for Bengaluru. However, he lamented the Ministry of Finance's rejection of these recommendations, thereby depriving Karnataka of its rightful share.
ALSO READ: FM Nirmala Sitharaman rubbishes Karnataka govt's claim of injustice in release of central grants
Stating that the state budget for essential expenditures for the five guarantees of the state government Siddaramaiah asserted that Karnataka's demand for its share was not a plea but a rightful assertion of its constitutional entitlement. He underscored the need for the central government to comprehend the essence of equitable distribution among states and fulfill its obligations accordingly.
“We are not asking for funds to our 5 Guarantees. We have adequate provision for those in our budget, thank you,” he said.
Contrary to Siddaramaiah's claims, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had earlier refuted allegations of withholding recommended grants for Karnataka. Dismissing the notion of any such recommendation by the 15 FC in its final report, Sitharaman maintained that Karnataka's claims of non-release of special grants were baseless. This rebuttal followed Karnataka's filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court, seeking the immediate release of grants under the National Disaster Response Fund to address the state's severe drought conditions.
Sitharaman asserted that every due penny to Karnataka had been disbursed transparently. She provided statistical evidence, highlighting significant increases in tax devolution and grants-in-aid to Karnataka during the tenure of the current government. Sitharaman also referenced additional financial support extended to states post-COVID-19, including interest-free loans for infrastructure development, which Karnataka had reportedly received.
The Finance Minister had urged the state government to review the factual records and desist from misleading the public regarding fund allocation.
One expects the country’s Finance Minister to speak the truth. Unfortunately, she has been consistently denying the written word.
— Siddaramaiah (@siddaramaiah) March 24, 2024
The interim report of the 15 FC for 2020-21 sanctioned Rs 6764 crores for three states, viz Karnataka (Rs 5495 crores), Telangana (Rs 723 crores) &… pic.twitter.com/8kFhl70oo2
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)
