'Suspicious' Bangladesh woman's Indian husband absconding; dependent visa cannot be extended says HC
Bengaluru (PTI): The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a petition filed by a Bangladeshi woman seeking extension of her stay in India.
The woman's Indian husband is absconding and without his consent for the dependent visa (X-1 visa) it cannot be extended. The HC also noted that her activities in India were suspicious as she was in constant touch with an organisation called SSG in Bangladesh which had connections with that country's military.
Between 2003 and 2005, the woman had worked in the Thailand Embassy office in Dhaka. The petition before the HC was filed by one Raktima Khanum, 46, which was heard by Justice M Nagaprasanna. The woman claimed to have fallen in love with one Janardhana Reddy, a resident of Bengaluru and an Indian citizen.
The two got married in December 2017 and the woman claimed that Reddy had converted to Islam. The couple lived in Chennai but soon their love floundered and the woman went back to Bangladesh as the tourist visa she was staying on had expired, she said.
When she applied for a visa again, it was converted to an entry visa -- a dependent visa -- which was valid till February 2020. She sought extension of the visa, and it was granted for six months as she was married to an Indian. The visa was again extended later till June 21, 2023.
When another extension was sought, the authorities demanded that she produce an undertaking/consent form the sponsor/parents/spouse as she was on a dependent visa.
She approached the high court in this regard. Her advocate contended that her husband is absconding and therefore she cannot submit a consent document.
The HC, however, said it cannot direct the authorities to extend the visa considering the facts of the case.
Dismissing the petition, the HC in its January 5 judgment said, "The power of the Government of India to expel nationals of other countries who overstay in the nation without any document is absolute and unfettered. Any indulgence shown to the petitioner, on any kind of sympathy, would be putting fetters on the discretion of the government, the FRRO and the Bureau of Immigration, more so in cases where there is even a semblance of threat to national security of any kind."
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)
