Virat Kohli ton powers RCB to 183/3 against RR in IPL
Jaipur, Apr 6: Virat Kohli enhanced his status as a lone ranger by notching up a record-extending eighth IPL century but Royal Challengers could only manage just about par-score of 183 for 3 against Rajasthan Royals here on Saturday.
Kohli showed superb improvisation, from his wrist-rolled pulls, powerful swat flicks to steer through third man as he remained unbeaten on 113 off 72 balls and has now scored 38 percent of RCB's total runs so far.
Kohli smashed 12 fours and four sixes and barring the assistance received from his skipper Faf Du Plessis (44 from 33 balls; 2x4, 2x6), he did not get any support from the other batters.
After reaching his fifty in 39 balls, Kohli stepped up well and took just 28 balls for his next fifty as he reached the milestone with a single off Nandre Burger in the penultimate over.
Glenn Maxwell (1) and debutant left-hander Saurav Chauhan (9), who failed to replicate his Syed Mushtaq Ali T20 form, fell cheaply.
Credit should go to RR spin duo of Ravichandran Ashwin (0/28) and Yuzvendra Chahal (2/34) who stifled the proceedings in the middle overs.
Chahal was exceptional as he cleverly deceived the batters with his pace and variations by bowling googlies and sliders to fox the RCB batters.
Put in, RCB had their best ever start in this IPL when Kohli and Du Plessis saw through the power play for the first time this season in a 125-run opening partnership.
The duo put on a steady 53-run inside the power play, thanks to a brilliant over by Ashwin who conceded just three runs in the fifth over to pull them back.
Their pace spearhead Trent Boult bowled short and Kohli pulled them to get into the zone, while Nandre Burger was wayward and leaked 26 runs from his two overs inside the power play.
Thanks to Ashwin's over, RR had RCB in check even as the visitors had all their wickets intact.
Chahal further tightened the noose by brilliantly stifling Kohli in the eight over where he conceded just four runs.
But Du Plessis broke the shackles smashing Boult for two sixes in the ninth over, while Kohli also got it going against his former RCB teammate, smashing Chahal for six.
Sanju Samson took a gamble to bring in Riyan Parag against the set opening duo in the 11th over.
The part-time spinner, who bowls with a sling action even troubled the duo before being smashed by Kohli into the stands to bring up his third fifty this season. It came off 39 balls.
Riyan had a chance to break the partnership but he dropped a tough return catch from Du Plessis on 36.
Chahal finally broke the opening stand in an eventful 14th over, dismissing Du Plessis.
In the same over, Kohli was dropped on 66, a tough chance by Burger at point, and then Boult grassed a sitter from the South African at extra cover.
However in the next ball, Buttler made no mistake when Du Plessis went in for charge once again to be holed out at long-on.
He may have failed to impress with the new ball, but Burger came back strongly in the middle overs and beat Maxwell by angle and pace to clean up the Aussie dangerman for a three-ball one.
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)
