Rahul Dravid will have to reapply if he wants to continue as head coach after June: Jay Shah
Mumbai, May 10: India head coach Rahul Dravid will have to reapply if he wishes to continue in the job after his tenure ends with next month's T20 World Cup, BCCI Secretary Jay Shah has said while making it clear that the new appointment will be for a three-year term.
Dravid, who had a two-year contract originally, was given an extension along with his support staff after the conclusion of the 50-overs World Cup in November last year.
"We will call for applications in the next few days. Rahul Dravid's tenure is coming to an end. He has to reapply if he has to continue. We are looking for a long-term coach, for three years," Shah told select media during an interaction at the BCCI office here on Thursday.
The BCCI secretary said there has been no precedent of having different coaches for different formats but ultimately the decision rests with the Cricket Advisory Committee. The CAC comprises Jatin Paranjape, Ashok Malhotra and Sulakshana Naik.
"There is no precedent of different coaches for different format in Indian cricket. Besides, we have a number of players who are all-format players. There are many common players across formats such as Rishabh Pant, Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma," he said.
"Ultimately, this is the Cricket Advisory Committee's call. I have to implement what they decide," he added.
Shah said even a foreign coach can be considered depending on the CAC's recommendations.
"If the CAC selects a foreign coach, I can't interfere," he added.
The BCCI secretary informed that the vacant post of one national selector is expected to be filled up soon.
"A few interviews for the selector's post have already happened. We will announce it soon," he said.
Greg Barclay's role as the chairman of the International Cricket Council ends later this year but Shah remained non-committal on running for the position.
"Let me be here in BCCI. Let there be speculation. But let me be here (in the BCCI). Am I not doing a good job?" he asked.
"India sending experienced team for T20 World Cup"
Shah said India are sending an experienced team to the T20 World Cup owing to the fact that conditions in the USA are unknown.
"The team is leaving in two batches, those who will be free before (the playoffs) will leave on May 24. The rest of them will leave after the final," he said.
"We have an experienced team; a better team couldn't have been selected. We have selected the best 15 players possible. We have a batting line up till Nos. 8 and 9. We have selected experienced players who can play in all conditions," he added.
Shah rejected the talk that India, England and Australia are in talks to revive the franchise-based competition Champions League T20.
Cricket Victoria CEO Nick Cummins had claimed in a media interaction here last month that the three boards are in talks to revive the competition.
"The Cricket Victoria CEO has not spoken to me about this. No such discussions are taking place. I would have told you had I been a part of any talks," Shah said.
He also said the ICC has not approached BCCI on the topic of creating windows for country-based T20 leagues.
"That is ICC's prerogative. It is a fact that the ICC is not touching the IPL. In fact, they have given it a two-and-a-half month window instead of just about two months, we are grateful to the ICC for that," he said.
Shah said the board will speak to the ICC about hosting the World Test Championship final at a different venue from 2027. The first two editions of Test cricket's summit clash have been organised in England, including the one for the current 2023-25 cycle.
"We have spoken about the ICC for 2027. There are only three main Test centres, India, England and Australia. You cannot hold it in Australia during that window or even in India. Even in Bengaluru, it rains during that time," he said.
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)
