England beats New Zealand in Super Over to win T20 series
Auckland: England beat New Zealand in a thrilling Super Over finish to their rain-reduced Twenty20 cricket international Sunday, clinching a 3-2 win in the five-match series.
The teams were tied when England replied with 146-7 to New Zealand's 146-5 in a match shortened by heavy rain to 11 overs per side.
Jonny Bairstow and captain Eion Morgan took 17 runs from England's Super Over, bowled by New Zealand captain Tim Southee, before Martin Guptill, Tim Seifert and Colin de Grandhomme managed only eight from New Zealand's single over.
The match was reminiscent of the World Cup final between the teams in June when England won on a count back of boundaries after being tied at the end of 50 overs and again after the one-over eliminator.
This time England's performance in the tiebreaker was decisive.
Bairstow and Morgan both hit sixes to set New Zealand a chase for 18 runs, a total which was challenging even on the postage stamp boundaries of Eden Park.
New Zealand made the unusual decision to nominate wicketkeeper Tim Seifert to take the first ball of its Super Over, bowled by Chris Jordan. Seifert took two, left a wide, hit four and had a dot ball before falling to a brilliant catch by Morgan.
With New Zealand needing 10 runs from the last two balls Guptill could only manage a single from the first ball he faced and the match was over.
Bairstow was Man of the Match for his 47 from 18 balls which helped England match New Zealand's formidable 11-over total and for his contribution in the Super Over.
"New Zealand's total was pretty imposing," Bairstow said.
"To try to chase down 150 was tough but a lot of the guys played in the T10 last year and said we're not far off here. If we can get within striking distance and with the short boundaries we've got a chance."
Bairstow said the close finishes in recent matches against New Zealand had been nerve-wracking.
"We don't want to keep this happening, I don't think anyone wants to keep that going," he said. "But it just shows how close the sides are and how close they've been throughout the series."
After England won a rain-delayed toss and sent New Zealand into bat, Martin Guptill blasted 50 from 20 balls to launch the home side towards a competitive total. New Zealand was 37-0 after only two overs and reached 100 in only 7.3 overs.
England, in contrast, made a poor beginning, losing Tom Banton and James Vince within the first seven balls. Bairstow's innings put it back in the match and England came into the last over needing 16 runs to win.
Jordan struck a crucial six from the bowling of Jimmy Neesham, then hit a four from the last ball to tie the scores and send the match into the one-over eliminator.
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.
Shobha Karandlaje urges Governor to withhold assent to Karnataka hate speech bill
Bengaluru (PTI): Union Minister of State Shobha Karandlaje on Friday urged Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to withhold assent to the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, terming the Bill "vague, overbroad, and susceptible to misuse".
She also requested him to reserve the Bill for the consideration of President Droupadi Murmu under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, in the larger interest of constitutional governance, democratic freedoms, and the rule of law.
The bill, passed by both houses of the legislature, will be sent to the Governor for his assent.
Taking to social media 'X', the minister said, "The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill 2025 hands the State sweeping authority to silence opposition voices, restrain the media, and intimidate the citizens who defend Karnataka's land, language, and Dharma. This isn't a hate speech prevention bill, it's rather a bill that prevents the right to speech." "We will not let Congress turn the law into a tool to choke free speech and democratic dissent," she added.
In a letter to the governor, Karandlaje said the objective of the Bill is to address hate speech and hate crimes. However, upon careful examination, it becomes evident that the Bill, in its present form, establishes a "State-controlled mechanism" for monitoring, assessing, and penalising speech, rather than narrowly addressing expression that poses a clear and imminent threat to public order.
"The structure of the Bill enables executive authorities to determine the permissibility of expression, thereby transforming the law into a tool capable of suppressing voices critical of the government. Such an approach undermines the constitutional guarantee of democratic dissent and free expression," she said.
Citing reference of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India that guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen, she said, "The Bill departs from these constitutional limits by employing broad, vague, and subjective expressions such as "disharmony," "ill-will," and "prejudicial interest," which are not precisely defined. These terms confer excessive discretion on the Executive, enabling arbitrary and selective enforcement, which is inconsistent with constitutional safeguards."
She said the constitutional infirmities of the present Bill must be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015), wherein the Court held that any law regulating speech must be clear, narrowly tailored and free from vagueness.
The minister alleged that the Bill further authorises executive authorities and law-enforcement agencies to assess and act upon speech without adequate judicial oversight. Penal consequences are linked to executive assessment, thereby concentrating investigative and adjudicatory functions within the Executive.
"Such an arrangement erodes procedural safeguards and is inconsistent with constitutional principles governing the protection of fundamental rights," she alleged.
Karandlaje also pointed out the potential impact of the Bill on "historically marginalised" and "constitutionally protected" voices.
"The vague and expansive language of the legislation is capable of being invoked to silence Kannada language activists, women's organisations, representatives of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, backward classes, minorities, journalists, student groups, and civil society organisations that raise issues of governance, social justice, or administrative accountability," she said.
Instead of empowering vulnerable communities, according to the minister, the Bill risks becoming an instrument to deter them from articulating grievances and participating meaningfully in public discourse, thereby defeating the very constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and inclusive democracy.
The minister alleged that the cumulative effect of the Bill is likely to create a "pervasive chilling effect" on public discourse, which is incompatible with democratic governance.
Pointing out that the Bill directly impacts fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, she said, "In view of the serious constitutional questions it raises, this is a fit case for the exercise of constitutional discretion under Article 200. Reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President would enable a broader constitutional examination of its implications for civil liberties and the federal constitutional balance."
