ICC bans Indian Women team captain Harmanpreet Kaur for outburst in Dhaka
Dubai, Jul 25: The International Cricket Council (ICC) on Tuesday handed a two-match suspension to India women's team skipper Harmanpreet Kaur for her boorish behaviour during the third ODI against Bangladesh.
Harmanpreet was penalised for her outburst in Dhaka last week when she shattered the stumps after being adjudged leg before and publicly criticised the match officials.
"Harmanpreet Kaur has been suspended for the next two international matches following two separate breaches of the ICC Code of Conduct," said the ICC in a statement.
The suspension could see Harmanpreet missing two crucial game of India's campaign at the Asian Games in September-October in Hangzhou, China.
Harmanrpreet was adjudged leg before off a Nahida Akter delivery while trying to sweep but she claimed that she got a bottom edge and in a fit of rage shattered the stumps before walking back to the pavilion.
Later at the post match presentation ceremony, she termed the level of umpiring as "pathetic" and also sarcastically mentioned the umpires too should be called to join the teams for the trophy handing-over ceremony.
Her rude behaviour had prompted Bangladesh skipper Nigar Sultana to walk away with her team and urge her Indian counterpart to learn some "manners".
Kaur was also fined 50 percent of her match fee for expressing dissent at an umpire's decision, a level 2 offence, and 25 percent match fee, which is a level 1 offence, for openly criticising the umpires.
"Kaur was fined 50 percent of her match fee for the Level 2 offence and received three demerit points on her disciplinary record.
"She was found guilty of breaching article 2.8 of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, relating to "showing dissent at an umpire's decision," the statement read.
The Indian captain admitted the offences and agreed to the sanctions proposed by Akhtar Ahmed of the ICC International Panel of Match Referees. Hence, there was no need for a formal hearing, and the penalties were implemented promptly.
A Level 2 breach typically carries a penalty ranging from 50 to 100 percent of the player's match fee, and three or four demerit points, while a Level 1 breach entails a minimum penalty of an official reprimand, up to a maximum penalty of 50 percent of the player's match fee, and one or two demerit points.
"In Kaur's instance, the accumulation of four demerit points converted to two suspension points, leading to her suspension from either one Test match or two ODIs or two T20Is, whichever comes first for the team," the CC added.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
