Back after long lay-off, Jofra Archer steams in for 'KSCA' in warm-up game vs Sussex
Alur, Mar 15: England's fastest bowler Jofra Archer, who last played competitive cricket in May, 2023, looked in fine rhythm with figures of 2 for 22 in a seven over spell for Karnataka State Cricket Association XI (KSCA XI) against his own county side Sussex in a two-day warm-up game here.
Archer, who is part of the visiting Sussex side here, has not played for England since March 2023 and underwent an elbow surgery in May after he had to leave MI's IPL campaign midway through the tournament.
Subsequently, the England and Wales Cricket Board did not allow Archer, who was released by Mumbai Indians, to enter the IPL players' auction in December last year, citing the need to manage his workload.
Even though, the 28-year-old was retained by MI Cape Town for this year's SA20, his participation in the tournament did not eventuate.
Despite Archer appearing for them as a guest player, the KSCA XI could not prevent Sussex from taking the first innings and finish their two-day warm-up match on a strong note here on Friday.
Archer, who is on an extended recuperation trail, bowled seven overs and took two wickets (2/22) to support left-arm spinner Paras Gurbax (5/80), but the visitors made 365 before getting bowled out.
KSCA were bundled out for 201 in their first innings, and thus Sussex gained an innings lead of 164 runs.
The home finished their second innings at 162 for four.
Earlier, Tom Alsop (60, 109b, 7x4) and James Coles (87, 107b, 14x4) anchored the innings of Sussex with fine fifties.
Archer trapped Alsop in front of the wicket, while he castled Oli Carter (31, 33b, 3x4).
Brief scores:
KSCA XI: 201 all out in 162/4 drew with Sussex: 365 all out in 71.4 overs (James Coles 87, Tom Alsop 60; Paras Gurbax 5/80, Jofra Archer 2/22).
Wicket - Alsop out lbw, b Archer
— Sussex Cricket (@SussexCCC) March 15, 2024
The KSCA XI’s newest addition looks like a decent player tbf. 😅 pic.twitter.com/KXOTr6AgRI
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)
