Novak Djokovic back in detention, continues to fight deportation
Melbourne (AP): Novak Djokovic was reported to be back in immigration detention Saturday after his legal challenge to avoid being deported from Australia for being unvaccinated for COVID-19 was moved to three judges of a higher court.
A Federal Court hearing has been scheduled for Sunday, a day before the men's No. 1-ranked tennis player and nine-time Australian Open champion was due to begin his title defense at the first Grand Slam tennis tournament of the year.
Police closed down a lane behind the building where Djokovic's lawyers are based and two vehicles exited the building mid-afternoon local time on Saturday. In television footage, Djokovic could be seen wearing a face mask in the back of a vehicle near an immigration detention hotel.
The Australian Associated Press reported that Djokovic was back in detention. He spent four nights confined to a hotel near downtown Melbourne before being released last Monday when he won a court challenge on procedural grounds against his first visa cancellation.
Immigration Minister Alex Hawke on Friday blocked the 34-year-old Serb's visa, which was originally revoked when he landed at a Melbourne airport on Jan. 5.
Deportation from Australia can lead to a three-year ban on returning to the country, although that may be waived, depending on the circumstances.
Djokovic has acknowledged that his travel declaration was incorrect because it failed to indicate that he had been in multiple countries over the two weeks before his arrival in Australia.
But the incorrect travel information is not why Hawke decided that deporting Djokovic was in the public interest.
His lawyers filed documents in court on Saturday that revealed Hawke had stated that Djokovic is perceived by some as a talisman of a community of anti-vaccination sentiment.
Australia is one of the most highly vaccinated populations in the world, with 89% of people aged 16 and older fully inoculated for COVID-19.
But the minister said that Djokovic's presence in Australia may be a risk to the health and good order of the Australian public. His presence may be counterproductive to efforts at vaccination by others in Australia, the minister said.
The Health Department advised that Djokovic was a low risk of transmitting COVID-19 and a very low risk of transmitting the disease at the Australian Open.
The minister cited comments Djokovic made in April 2020, before a COVID-19 vaccine was available, that he was opposed to vaccination.
Djokovic had previously stated he wouldn't want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine to compete in tournaments.
The evidence makes it clear that he has publicly expressed anti-vaccination sentiment, the minister wrote in his reasons for canceling Djokovic's visa.
Djokovic's lawyers argue that the minister had cited no evidence that Djokovic's presence in Australia may foster anti-vaccination sentiment.
Djokovic will be allowed out of hotel detention on Sunday to visit his lawyers' offices for the video court hearing.
On Saturday, Federal Chief Justice James Allsop announced that he would hear the case with Justices David O'Callaghan and Anthony Besanko.
The decision for three judges to hear the appeal instead of a single judge elevates the importance of the case from the judiciary's perspective and potentially gives Djokovic an advantage.
The trio are regarded as experienced judges who are more likely to find a government minister at fault than their more junior colleagues.
O'Callaghan had earlier suggested a full bench hear the case. A full bench is three or five judges.
A full bench means any verdict would be less likely to be appealed. The only avenue of appeal would be the High Court and there would be no guarantee that that court would even agree to hear such an appeal.
Djokovic's lawyer Paul Holdenson opted for a full bench while Hawke's lawyer Stephen Lloyd preferred a single judge.
"There's nothing special about the grounds, Lloyd argued, referring to Djokovic's argument that Hawke had made an irrational decision based on no evidence.
"They're not novel legally and we say there's no justification for stepping out of the ordinary by appointing three judges, Lloyd added.
Legal observers suspect Lloyd wanted to keep the option open of another Federal Court appeal because he thinks the minister can mount a stronger case without the rush to reach a verdict before Monday.
Djokovic has won the past three Australian Opens, part of his overall Grand Slam haul of 20 championships. He is tied with Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer for the most by a man in history.
In a post on social media Wednesday that constituted his most extensive public comments yet on the episode, Djokovic blamed his agent for checking the wrong box on the form, calling it a human error and certainly not deliberate.
In that same post, Djokovic said he went ahead with an interview and a photo shoot with a French newspaper in Serbia despite knowing he had tested positive for COVID-19 two days earlier.
Djokovic has been attempting to use what he says was a positive test taken on Dec. 16 to justify a medical exemption that would allow him to skirt the vaccine requirement on the grounds that he already had COVID-19.
In canceling Djokovic' visa, Hawke said that Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government is firmly committed to protecting Australia's borders, particularly in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Morrison himself welcomed Djokovic's pending deportation. The episode has touched a nerve in Australia, and particularly in Victoria state, where locals went through hundreds of days of lockdowns during the worst of the pandemic.
Australia faces a massive surge in virus cases driven by the highly transmissible omicron variant. On Friday, the nation reported 130,000 new cases, including nearly 35,000 in Victoria state.
Although many infected people aren't getting as sick as they did in previous outbreaks, the surge is still putting severe strain on the health system, with more than 4,400 people hospitalized. It has also disrupted workplaces and supply chains.
Djokovic's supporters in Serbia have been dismayed by the visa cancellations. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic on Friday accused the Australian government of harassing and maltreating Djokovic and asked whether it is just trying to score political points ahead of upcoming elections.
"Why didn't you return him back right away, or tell him it was impossible to get a visa? Vucic asked the Australian authorities in a social media address. Why are you harassing him and why are you maltreating not only him, but his family and an entire nation that is free and proud."
Everyone at the Australian Open including players, their support teams and spectators is required to be vaccinated.
According to Grand Slam rules, if Djokovic is forced to pull out of the tournament before the order of play for Day 1 is announced, No. 5 seed Andrey Rublev would move into Djokovic's spot in the bracket.
If Djokovic withdraws from the tournament after Monday's schedule is released, he would be replaced in the field by what's known as a lucky loser a player who loses in the qualifying tournament but gets into the main draw because of another player's exit before competition has started.
And if Djokovic plays in a match or more and then is told he can no longer participate in the tournament, his next opponent would simply advance to the following round and there would be no replacement.
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)
