<p>HRD Minister Kapil Sibal had to make a hasty retreat after the Education Tribunal Bill, 2010 came under all round attack including from senior Congress leader K Keshava Rao.<br /><br />This is despite the fact that the bill, seeking to create a mechanism for providing speedy resolution of disputes pertaining to higher education institutions, was passed by Lok Sabha on August 26. UPA does not have a majority in the Upper House.<br /><br />"Considering the sentiments of honourable members of this House, I request that the consideration of the bill be deferred to the next session," Sibal said.<br /><br />The minister at the same time disagreed with the apprehensions expressed by the opposition saying, "We are not in anyway infringing upon the rights of the states. It's a significant piece of legislation and if members want a larger debate, we have no problem." </p>.<p>K N Balagopal (CPI-M) said it was a hasty bill and wanted it to be put in abeyance.<br />N K Singh (JD-U) wanted to know whether the bill has provisions for strengthening internal dispute resolution and settlement mechanism.<br /><br />He said there was "excessive bureaucratisation" and referred to the proposal of having three Secretaries to the Government of India in the Tribunal.<br /><br />Singh also criticised the government for ignoring the recommendations of the Standing Committee.<br /><br />K P Ramalingam (DMK), while supporting the bill, said it was not proper to appoint retired members of the judiciary in the Tribunal.<br /><br />He said the National Tribunal should be an appellate authority and not a governing authority and added that the autonomy of the states should not be eroded.<br />Pyarimohan Mohapatra (BJD) said the minister was in a "tearing hurry" as the recommendations of the Standing Committee were ignored.<br /><br />He said education was in the concurrent list but it does not mean that the Centre would trample over the rights of the state in this regard.<br /><br />Urging the government to keep the bill in abeyance or withdraw it, Bharatkumar Raut (Shiv Sena) said only four states have so far given their consent to the bill.<br /><br />He said the bill does not deal with education at all and wondered why the minority educational institutions have been kept out of the ambit of the proposed legislation.<br />"You are doing more harm to the minorities than good by keeping them out of the ambit of the bill," he said.<br /><br />Describing the Bill as a "hurried legislation", M Rama Jois (BJP) said it was not acceptable in a federal structure.<br /><br />Mahendra Mohan (SP) and Janardhan Waghmare (NCP) supported the bill. Others who participated in the debate included Bhalchandra Mungekar (Nom). </p>
<p>HRD Minister Kapil Sibal had to make a hasty retreat after the Education Tribunal Bill, 2010 came under all round attack including from senior Congress leader K Keshava Rao.<br /><br />This is despite the fact that the bill, seeking to create a mechanism for providing speedy resolution of disputes pertaining to higher education institutions, was passed by Lok Sabha on August 26. UPA does not have a majority in the Upper House.<br /><br />"Considering the sentiments of honourable members of this House, I request that the consideration of the bill be deferred to the next session," Sibal said.<br /><br />The minister at the same time disagreed with the apprehensions expressed by the opposition saying, "We are not in anyway infringing upon the rights of the states. It's a significant piece of legislation and if members want a larger debate, we have no problem." </p>.<p>K N Balagopal (CPI-M) said it was a hasty bill and wanted it to be put in abeyance.<br />N K Singh (JD-U) wanted to know whether the bill has provisions for strengthening internal dispute resolution and settlement mechanism.<br /><br />He said there was "excessive bureaucratisation" and referred to the proposal of having three Secretaries to the Government of India in the Tribunal.<br /><br />Singh also criticised the government for ignoring the recommendations of the Standing Committee.<br /><br />K P Ramalingam (DMK), while supporting the bill, said it was not proper to appoint retired members of the judiciary in the Tribunal.<br /><br />He said the National Tribunal should be an appellate authority and not a governing authority and added that the autonomy of the states should not be eroded.<br />Pyarimohan Mohapatra (BJD) said the minister was in a "tearing hurry" as the recommendations of the Standing Committee were ignored.<br /><br />He said education was in the concurrent list but it does not mean that the Centre would trample over the rights of the state in this regard.<br /><br />Urging the government to keep the bill in abeyance or withdraw it, Bharatkumar Raut (Shiv Sena) said only four states have so far given their consent to the bill.<br /><br />He said the bill does not deal with education at all and wondered why the minority educational institutions have been kept out of the ambit of the proposed legislation.<br />"You are doing more harm to the minorities than good by keeping them out of the ambit of the bill," he said.<br /><br />Describing the Bill as a "hurried legislation", M Rama Jois (BJP) said it was not acceptable in a federal structure.<br /><br />Mahendra Mohan (SP) and Janardhan Waghmare (NCP) supported the bill. Others who participated in the debate included Bhalchandra Mungekar (Nom). </p>