Bajrang Punia handed provisional suspension, WFI to approach WADA after NADA keeps it in 'dark'
‘Never refused to give my sample’: Bajrang Punia responds after NADA suspends him
New Delhi, May 5: Bajrang Punia has been handed provisional suspension for refusing to give his sample for dope test during recent trials and the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) is furious that NADA kept it "in dark" on the development and is planning to write to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on the matter.
Bajrang was handed provisional suspension on April 23 by National Anti Doping Agency (NADA) and asked to send his reply by May 7 to avoid further disciplinary action.
The trials to pick the men's national team for the Asian Olympic Qualifiers in Bishkek were held in Sonepat on March 10 and Bajrang had walked off the venue without providing his urine sample after losing his bout.
Reacting to his suspension, Bajrang said he never refused to provide his sample to NADA officials.
"I want to clarify that I never refused to give my sample to NADA officials. I requested them to first answer me as to what action they took on the expired kit they brought to take my sample and then take my dope test," Bajrang wrote on X.
"My lawyer Vidush Singhania will reply to this letter," he wrote further.
The Tokyo Games bronze medallist also posted a video in which he displayed "expired kits" being sent for sample collection and asked the official why such kits were brought.
The video is from the time a dope sample collecting officer visited him to take samples. In the video, Bajrang said he was fortunate to have a team that noticed the expiry date and what would have innocent junior wrestlers done in case such kits reach them.
He also alleged that former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh was using such kits to scare women wrestlers who had the guts to come out in the open against him.
"I am not blaming you. This is work of the big crocodiles sitting above. Money talks in these matter," he was heard telling the officer in the video.
If Bajrang fails to come out clean with his reply, he will be out of the race for Paris Olympic Qualification.
According to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) Code, "Refusing, or failing without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading sample collection is an anti-doping rule violation."
Meanwhile WFI President Sanjay Singh expressed his surprise that NADA did not inform them about the suspension.
"It's really surprising that NADA did not keep us in loop while suspending Bajrang. I had a meeting with NADA DG and other officials on April 25 and this matter was not raised in that meeting," Sanjay told PTI.
"They keep communicating with us on matters such as whereabout clause requirements, long list (for Paris Olympics) and so on. Even we had a discussion about the recent Federation Cup, where they sent officials to collect samples from the winners.
"But they did not let us know about this suspension of Bajrang Punia. I called NADA officials this morning and they had no answer to my query. Now, I plan to write to NADA and also inform WADA about this," he said.
It was reported that Vinesh Phogat had also initially refused to provide her sample after she won the women's 50kg trials in Patiala.
"We were not informed by anyone whose samples were taken after trials (in Sonepat and Patiala) and what came out of those samples. Just imagine if Bajrang had come to compete in the Federation Cup. We would have allowed him because we had no clue that he had been suspended," the WFI chief added.
Meanwhile, Bhupender Singh Bajwa, who was the head of the dissolved ad-hoc panel, told PTI they also have no communication regarding the suspension of Bajrang.
"I have got the mail checked. We have no such communication. We got a mail on April 18 about a warning to Bajrang but the April 23 communication is not with us. I don't know to which email ID they sent it," Bajwa said.
The World Qualifiers in Turkey from May 9 is the last chance for Indian wrestlers to lock quotas for the Paris Olympics. Sujeet Kalkal will represent India in the men's freestyle 65kg class, a category in which Bajrang competes.
If Sujeet wins the quota, the WFI may ask him and other quota winners to appear in one final trial to decide who represents India in the Paris Games, starting July 26.
So far, four Indian women wrestlers -- Vinesh Phogat (50kg), Antim Panghal (53kg), Anshu Malik (57kg) and Reetika Hooda (76kg) -- have qualified for the Olympics.
मेरे बारे में जो डोप टेस्ट के लिए ख़बर आ रही है उसके लिये मैं स्पष्ट करना चाहता हूँ !!! मैंने कभी भी नाडा अधिकारियों को sample देने से इनकार नहीं किया, मैंने उनसे अनुरोध किया कि वे मुझे जवाब दें कि उन्होंने पहले मेरा sample लेने के लिए जो एक्सपायरी किट लाई थी, उस पर उन्होंने क्या… pic.twitter.com/aU676ADyy3
— Bajrang Punia 🇮🇳 (@BajrangPunia) May 5, 2024
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)
