SIT files preliminary charge sheet in Karnataka Valmiki Corporation scam
Bengaluru, Aug 5: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the misappropriation of funds from the state-run Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation has filed a preliminary charge sheet mentioning the arrest of 12 people and the seizure of Rs 49.96 crore in the case, police said on Monday.
The opposition BJP and JD(S) have been demanding the resignation of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over the scam that has already led to the resignation of Minister B Nagendra, who is currently under ED scanner.
The Valmiki Corporation's former officials including ex-Managing Director J G Padmanabha and Ex-Accounts Officer Parashuram Durgannanavar; First Finance Credit Co-operative Society Limited Chairman Sathyanarayana Etakari; acquaintance of Former Minister Nagendra Nekkunte Nagaraj; and Brother-in-law of Nekkunte Nagaraj Nageshwar Rao are among the 12 arrested, police said.
According to a police statement regarding the charge sheet, the SIT is conducting the investigation under the guidance and supervision of the Director General of Police, CID, Bengaluru. So far, totally eight cases have been registered in connection with the scam and have been investigated by the SIT.
The SIT has seized cash, gold and other materials from the accused persons.
The total seizure made during the course of investigation is of Rs 49.96 crore, which includes Rs 16.83 crore cash and 16.25 kg gold worth Rs 11.7 crore.
The total value of the luxury cars Lamborghini Urus and Mercedes Benz seized is Rs 4.51 crore, and the investigating officer’s bank account with Rs 3.19 crore seized and amount in frozen accounts add up to Rs 13.72 crore.
"The Investigating Officer of SIT has filed a preliminary charge sheet containing seven volumes and 3,072 pages at High Grounds Police Station in Case No. 118/2024 against the above accused persons under various sections of the IPC, including 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property) in the 3rd ACMM (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court), Bengaluru and further investigation is continued," the police said in a statement.
"All out efforts are being made by SIT to investigate the above case and seven other related cases in professional and transparent manner. The investigation continues," they added.
The Valmiki Corporation scam is said to involve about Rs 187.33 crore where the money kept in various accounts, including Rs 40 crore in the government treasury, was diverted towards the Union Bank of India’s MG Road branch.
Of the Rs 187.33 crore, Rs 88.63 crore was illegally transferred to at least 217 different bank accounts in Telangana including 18 firms.
Former minister Nagendra, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, is in judicial custody in connection with the case.
The scam came to light after the Accounts Superintendent of the Corporation Chandrasekharan P died by suicide.
In his suicide note, he had explained in detail how the money was transferred and the role of the Corporation and the bank officials in the scam.
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)
