State only getting Rs. 2098 crore under 'Krishi Sanman': CM Kumaraswamy
State government is giving Rs 11K subsidy to farmers
Bengaluru, Feb 5: Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy said, the state will get only Rs 2098 crore under central government sponsored 'Krishi Sanman' scheme, while the state government has been giving Rs 11000 crore as subsidy to pump set users.
Speaking at the releasing of logo of BESCOM consumers awareness programme 2019, solar panel and power enabled vehicles recharging station, organised by the BESCOM at Halasur here on Tuesday, the Chief Minister said that the state was not getting much benefits from the scheme announced by the central government in its budget. Only 59-60 lakh farmers of the state would get the benefit. But the Energy department of the state government has been giving Rs 11000 crore subsidy to the farmers for their pump sets.
“With the free distribution of power, the power companies were under loss. The BESCOM itself was under loss at the time, of Rs. 4000 crore. So far it has not repaid it. The Chescom has Rs 800 crore loans and the KPTCL has the burden of Rs 16000 crore. Due to delay in payment of subsidy, the Escoms have been incurring minimum Rs 3000 crore to Rs 4000 crore loss. Farmers should also understand this. The farmers were being given free power since 2008 due to which, the subsidy dues have increased from Rs 4000 crore to Rs 11000 crore”, he said.
“In rural areas, the linemen and other staff should take precautionary measures for their safety. Awareness should also be created among consumers. The state was marching towards self sustainability in power production. But due to lapses, it was not succeeded”, he said.
BESCOM Ombudsman chairman SS Pattana Shetty said that consumer was important here as he was not dependent to anybody. He has given the opportunity to serve him. “We are not helping him through our service. Instead, we should thank them for giving us such an opportunity. So, we have to serve them better”, he said.
“Consumer Reddressal Forum was constituted in 2004 and the consumers should submit their grievances to the Forum. Every Saturday, the consumers could find solution to their problems. The forums were formed in all districts. But the consumers do not have information about it. The forums would report to the centre on complaints received and action taken. Surprisingly, there were no complaints in some districts. The consumers could lodge complaints if the companies have failed to provide around 15 services including delay in service, billing and others. The district level forums would give verdicts within 60 days and if the complaints were not resolved, they could move the state level Ombudsmen”, he said.
Power Department Additional Chief Secretary Ravi Kumar, BESCOM managing director Shikha, KASIA president Basavaraj Javali, Peenya Industrial Area Association president MN Giri, BESCOM citizens forum president Srinivas Marali, MLA Bhoje Gowda and others were present.
“If quality power and scientific price is ensured to their agriculture produces, the farmers would not ask free power. Steps have been taken to check the wastage of power by laying the power cable underneath. In future, the power cables laid already would be converted into underground cables. Along with this, internet Optical Fibre cable would also be laid”.
- HD Kumaraswamy, Chief Minister
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)
