Russian President Vladimir Putin announces constitutional reform, his PM steps down
Moscow, Jan 15: President Vladimir Putin accepted the resignation of his prime minister Wednesday after proposing constitutional amendments that could herald his intention to carve out a position that would let him stay at Russia's helm after his presidency ends.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who served as a placeholder president in 2008-2012 to allow Putin to observe term limits, said in televised comments that he needed to resign in light of his mentor's proposed changes in government.
Putin thanked Medvedev for his work and appointed him as the deputy head of the presidential Security Council.
In his state of the nation address earlier in the day, Putin suggested amending the constitution to allow lawmakers to name prime ministers and Cabinet members. The authority to make those appointments currently belongs to Russia's president.
It will increase the role of parliament and parliamentary parties, powers and independence of the prime minister and all Cabinet members, Putin told an audience of top officials and lawmakers.
At the same time, Putin argued that Russia would not remain stable if it were governed under a parliamentary system. The president should retain the right to dismiss the prime minister and Cabinet ministers, to name top defense and security officials, and to be in charge of the Russian military and law enforcement agencies, he said.
Putin emphasized that constitutional changes must be put to a nationwide vote.
Putin's current term expires in 2024, and Russia's political elites have been abuzz with speculation about his future plans.
The 67-year-old Putin has remained at the helm for more than 20 years longer than any other Russian or Soviet leader since Josef Stalin. He will have to step down after his term ends under the current law, which limits the president to two consecutive terms.
Political analyst Kirill Rogov said that Putin's proposals indicate his intention to remain in charge while re-distributing powers between various branches of government.
Such a model resembling the Chinese one would allow Putin to stay at the helm indefinitely while encouraging rivalry between potential successors, Rogov said on Facebook.
Alexei Navalny, the most prominent Russian opposition leader, tweeted that the president's speech signaled Putin's desire to continue calling the shots after his term ends.
The only goal of Putin and his regime is to stay in charge for life, having the entire country as his personal asset and seizing its riches for himself and his friends, Navalny alleged.
Putin served two presidential terms in 2000-2008 before shifting into the prime minister's seat for four years to observe the term limit. Medvedev kept his seat warm and then stepped down after just one term to allow his mentor to reclaim the top job in 2012. While in office, Medvedev raised the presidential term from four to six years.
While Putin continued calling the shots during Medvedev's presidency, he wasn't quite happy with his performance. He was particularly critical of Medvedev's decision to give the green light to the Western air campaign over Libya in 2011 that led to the ouster and the killing of long-time dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
Medvedev's decision to step down after one term to let Putin return to the presidency also sparked massive protests in Moscow in 2011-2012 in a major challenge to the Kremlin.
Observers speculated that Putin may stay in charge after 2024 by shifting into the prime minister's seat after increasing the powers of parliament and the Cabinet and trimming presidential authority.
Political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin said Putin's speech made it clear he was pondering the move to premiership.
Putin is advancing the idea of keeping his authority as a more powerful and influential prime minister while the presidency will become more decorative, Oreshkin said.
Other potential options include a merger with neighboring Belarus that would create a new position of the head of a new unified state a prospect rejected by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.
In his address, Putin said the constitution must also specify the authority of the State Council consisting of regional governors and top federal officials.
Some analysts have theorized that Putin may try to continue pulling the strings as head of the council after stepping down as president in 2024.
Putin also emphasized the need to amend the constitution to give it a clear priority over international law.
The requirements of international law and treaties and decisions of international organs can only be valid on the territory of Russia as long as they don't restrict human rights and freedoms and don't contradict the constitution, he said.
He also said that the constitution must be tweaked to say that top government officials aren't allowed to have foreign citizenship or residence permits.
Putin focused his state of the nation address on the need to encourage population growth by offering additional subsidies to families that have children.
The Russian leader said that Russia would remain open for cooperation with all countries while maintaining a strong defense capability to fend off potential threats.
He added that new weapons systems would protect Russia's security for decades ahead. For the first time in history, we aren't trying to catch up with anyone, Putin said. On the contrary, other leading nations are yet to develop the weapons that Russia already has.
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)
