Siddaramaiah demands reduction in cess, sales tax on fuel prices
Bengaluru (PTI): Former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Wednesday demanded a reduction in the cess and sales tax on petrol and diesel in Karnataka and suggested that the price be brought down more than it was done in Tamil Nadu, to bring relief to the public. "The rise of petrol price from Rs 70 to Rs 130 in a short duration is abnormal. I can still understand if it was Rs 10 or Rs 20. I demand reduction in sales tax from 35 per cent to 15 per cent," Siddaramaiah, who is the Leader of the Opposition, said during a debate on price rise in the Karnataka Assembly.
He added that the taxes on diesel should be reduced from 74 per cent to 50 per cent.
Siddaramaiah cited the example of Tamil Nadu government, which had reduced the fuel prices by Rs three. "Our reduction in fuel prices should be more than it," he said.
The assembly witnessed heated exchanges between the ruling and opposition sides during the debate on price rise, initiated by the LoP Siddaramaiah, who accused the BJP governments in the state and Centre of indulging in "criminal loot".
Siddaramaiah also charged the government with 'neglecting' holding the assembly sessions, pointing out that the legislature session was being held after a gap of six months.
"The prices of all commodities have reached the sky, whether it is rice, pulses, cement, iron, gas, petrol, diesel...Prices have been rising for the last two years continuously. The situation is such that the common man and middle class people are unable to lead their lives," Siddaramaiah said.
The Congress Legislature Party Leader said the price rise was because the Government of India "exponentially" increased additional excise duty on petrol, diesel and gas.
"They (BJP) blame international crude oil prices for the fuel price rise. The price of crude oil is down to USD 69 per barrel from USD 120. Still, a litre of petrol is Rs 106 and diesel will soon touch Rs 100," he said, as he compared the prices when UPA was in power and now.
The Centre did not transfer the benefit of the decline in crude oil prices at the international market to the consumers here, he alleged.
Countering the argument on debt position and oil bonds, he said, "They (BJP) say the previous government had borrowed huge loans/oil bonds. The loans amounted to just about Rs 1.30 lakh crore... From Karnataka alone in seven years, Rs 1.21 lakh crore excise duty has gone to the Centre."
Objecting to Siddaramaiah's line of argument, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister J C Madhuswamy questioned the need to discuss the issue in the assembly as the decisions on this are taken by the Centre.
"Is this a Parliament speech or assembly speech? I feel you have forgotten and gone to Parliament. Can we discuss or debate on matters or decisions related to the central government or parliament here? How can the state government answer it?" he asked, leading to another round of verbal sparring between the opposition and treasury benches.
In reply, Siddaramaiah said he was not levelling charges against the Prime Minister or the Centre and was aware they cannot answer in the assembly, but was only placing facts.
"Are over 6.5 crore people of Karnataka not affected by price rise? What should we tell them as public representatives? Is it not our responsibility? Can we keep quiet?" he asked, and said if everyone agreed, he favoured sending a resolution to the Centre on the price rise issue.
Siddaramaiah, during his speech, pointed out that there had been no legislature session for the last six months and accused the government of "neglect" in calling the session to discuss issues faced by the people.
As Madhuswamy cited COVID-19 as the reason for not calling the session, Siddaramaiah asked "how did Parliament function then? You are using Corona as the shield. It is because of your (ruling BJP) internal issues that the session was not called."
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)
