Fiery pacers blast Bangladesh out for 150, India 86/1 on day 1
Indore, Nov 14: India's pace troika was at its menacing best against an under-confident Bangladesh, helping the home team seize control of the first Test here on the opening day itself.
On one of the bounciest tracks in recent times, Bangladesh were bundled out for 150 in 58.3 overs, lasting barely two sessions and a few overs more here on Thursday.
With ample time at their disposal, India ended the day at 86 for 1 in 26 overs, losing Rohit Sharma's (6) wicket to Abu Jayed.
The notable aspect during the Indian innings was Cheteshwar Pujara (46 batting) outscoring the more flamboyant Mayank Agarwal (37 batting) during their unbroken 72-run stand, leaving ominous signs for the four-man Bangladesh attack.
The first day's proceedings starkly highlighted the gulf between world's No.1 and No.9 Test sides.
Umesh Yadav (2/47 in 14.3 overs), Ishant Sharma (2/20 in 12 overs) and Mohammed Shami (3/27 in 12 overs) made life difficult for a team whose batsmen lacked both in technique and temperament.
A luckless Ravichandran Ashwin (2/43 in 16 overs), let down by Ajinkya Rahane in the slips cordon, also had a couple of clean-bowled dismissals in his kitty in the post-lunch session.
The three Indian pacers consistently bowled at 140 kmph, with seam, swing and bounce making life miserable for Bangladeshi batsmen.
Each of the three displayed different qualities and it was evident from the manner of dismissals.
Ishant's bowling was about disconcerting bounce from length that had opener Shadman Islam caught behind and the occasional fuller delivery holding its line that forced Liton Das to edge one to Virat Kohli in the slips.
For Umesh, it started with brisk pace and getting it to seam into other opener Imrul Kayes and making him expect more incoming deliveries. Just when Kayes was getting used to a pattern, Umesh produced away going deliveries for the left-hander, squaring him up and the edge flew to slips.
He again came in the post-tea session during which the tailenders looked scared, retreating towards square leg in fear of getting hurt.
Mohammed Shami, probably the craftiest among the contemporary Indian pacers, showed there is no one better when it comes to getting reverse swing with 50-over old SG Test ball.
Mushfiqur Rahim (43), Bangladesh's top scorer, who led a charmed life and was dropped twice, didn't have a clue when one swung back to knock the stumps back after he was beaten by away going deliveries.
The next one by Shami swung even more as Mehidy Hasan Miraj (0) was adjudged leg-before although a DRS call could have saved him had he opted for one.
In the first session, Shami had dismissed Mohammed Mithun with conventional inswing.
Even without Jasprit Bumrah, who is nursing a stress fracture, the unit looked so formidable that one could sympathise with Bangladeshi batsmen facing their combined might.
They attacked relentlessly and it didn't matter that India weren't exactly having a great day as far as slip catching was concerned. Umesh could have got Mushfiqur early had Kohli latched on to one in the third slip.
Ashwin had both Mushfiqur and Mahmudullah Riyad dropped by Rahane at first slip.
It didn't cost the team much but the frustrated bowler then decided that breaching the defence was the best option as Mominul Haque (36) and Mahmudullah were dismissed due to poor judgement and shot selection respectively.
First he angled one to left-hander Mominul, who thought it will be a conventional off-break and decided to leave the delivery.
To his horror, it came in with the angle to peg the off-stump back.
Mahmudullah was lucky when Rahane dropped a regulation catch at slips but a rank bad shot brought about his downfall.
The right-hander tried to sweep Ashwin from outside the off-stump and in the process was bowled round the legs, leaving all three stumps exposed.
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."
