TT star Manika Batra alleges national coach Roy asked her to fix match in Olympic qualifiers
New Delhi, Sep 3: Table tennis star Manika Batra has alleged that national coach Soumyadeep Roy asked her to throw a match during the Olympic qualifiers in March and that was the main reason she refused his help in the singles competition of the Tokyo Games.
Responding to Table Tennis Federation of India's show cause notice, Manika strongly denied that she brought disrepute to the game by refusing Roy's help.
According to TTFI sources, the world number 56 stated she would not have been able to focus on her match if someone who asked to her indulge in match-fixing months earlier was sitting by her side.
"Besides the need to avoid disturbance due to his last minute intervention, there was an additional and much more serious reason behind my preference to play without the national coach," the Khel Ratna awardee alleged in her response to TTFI secretary Arun Banerjee.
"The national coach had pressurised me during the qualification tournament in Doha in March 2021 to concede my match to his student to enable her to qualify for Olympics - in short- to indulge in match-fixing," she said.
Despite repeated attempts, Roy was not available for a response to the allegations. The player-turned coach has also not been asked to join the ongoing national camp and has been told by TTFI to present his side of the story.
"The allegations are against Roy. Let him respond and then we will decide future course of action," said Banerjee when asked about Manika's response to the show cause notice.
Roy is a former Commonwealth Games gold-medallist in the team event and also an Arjuna awardee.
Both Manika and Sutirtha Mukherjee, who train in Roy's academy, ended up qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics. Manika qualified on her higher world ranking after losing to Sutirtha, who secured the Olympic quota from the event held in Doha.
"I have evidence of this incident and I am ready to present it to the competent authorities at the appropriate time. For asking me to concede the match, the national coach personally met me in my hotel room and talked to me for nearly 20 minutes," said Manika.
"He tried to promote his own student using unethical means under the pretext of national interest. He was accompanied by his student who trains in the private academy not only run by, but also named after him.
"From my side, I did not promise to oblige him and promptly reported this matter to a TTFI official. I decided not to obey the unethical command of the national coach. But his intimidation and pressure had its effect on my mental frame and consequently my performance.
"During the Olympics, I wanted to keep away from the demoralising effect of such a coach. Because, as a player representing India, it was my duty to serve my country in the best possible way."
Manika made history by reaching the third round while Sutirtha also did well to reach the second round.
TTFI had called Manika's refusal to take Roy's advice as an act of indiscipline and showcaused her.
"I strongly deny the charge therein that I brought disrepute to TTFI, Government of India and the country and undermined the appointment of the national coach by playing my singles matches in the Tokyo Olympics without the presence of the national coach in the field of play.
"In fact and on the contrary, I have served my country and TTFI in the best possible way by playing my matches alone," she wrote.
Manika also questioned TTFI for not taking action against Roy.
"I have been falsely charged with 'bringing disrepute to the country by the sight of an empty chair of the coach'. But the truth is that the 'empty chair' was the result of the national coach's pressure tactics for match fixing and TTFI's inaction to act on my prompt reporting of that incident and not the result of my so-called 'indiscipline'.
"Unfortunately, when I raised the issue of the match fixing pressure tactics by the national coach again in my e-mail dated 14'th August 2021, TTFI refuted this issue outright without even a preliminary, impartial and transparent inquiry.
"Finally, to reiterate and summarise, I have done nothing wrong in playing my matches alone," she asserted.
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)
