New Delhi, Mar 17: A clinical Royal Challengers Bangalore won the Women's Premier League 2024 title with an eight-wicket victory over Delhi Capitals in the final here on Sunday.
Batting first, DC were bowled out for 113 in 18.3 overs. RCB chased down the target of 114 with three balls to spare, much to the disappointment of the weekend crowd that turned out to support the home team.
With Shafali Verma (44 off 27 balls) going great guns, DC were cruising at 64 for no loss in 43 balls before they committed harakiri, losing 10 wickets for just 49 runs.
Spinners Shreyanka Patil (4/12) and Sophie Molineux (3/20) helped RCB stage a remarkable recovery after Shafali's exploits at the top of the order.
Brief scores:
Delhi Capitals: 113 all out in 18.3 overs (Shafali Verma 44; Shreyanka Patil 4/12, Sophie Molineux 3/20).
Royal Challengers Bangalore: 115 for two in 19.3 overs (Smriti Mandhana 31, Sophie Devine 32, Ellyse Perry 35 not out).
๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ฉ! ๐ ๐
— Women's Premier League (WPL) (@wplt20) March 17, 2024
That's how the Royal Challengers Bangalore sealed a memorable win to emerge the #TATAWPL 2024 Champions! ๐
Scorecard โถ๏ธhttps://t.co/g011cfzcFp#DCvRCB | #Final | @RCBTweets pic.twitter.com/ghlo7YVvwW
The Smriti Mandhana-led Royal Challengers Bangalore reign supreme! ๐
— Women's Premier League (WPL) (@wplt20) March 17, 2024
Presenting before you - Champions of the #TATAWPL 2024 ! ๐ ๐
Congratulations, #RCB! ๐ ๐#DCvRCB | #Final | @RCBTweets | @mandhana_smriti pic.twitter.com/mYbX9qWrUt
The Reactions ๐
— Women's Premier League (WPL) (@wplt20) March 17, 2024
The Emotions โบ๏ธ
The Celebrations ๐
They say what this triumph means for the Royal Challengers Bangalore ๐
Scorecard โถ๏ธ https://t.co/g011cfzcFp#TATAWPL | #DCvRCB | #Final | @RCBTweets pic.twitter.com/imJPUlpIPD
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.
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 โน10 lakh to โน75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to โน2 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.”
