Hit-Man's 'Maha' Show: Rohit guides India to series-equalling 8-wicket victory in his 100th game
Rajkot, Nov 7: Skipper Rohit Sharma made it a memorable 100th T20 International blending grace with brutality in his 85 off 43 balls as India cantered to a series-levelling eight-wicket victory over Bangladesh here on Thursday.
Chasing an easy target of 154 on far better track compared to Feroz Shah Kotla, Rohit showed the gulf in class between him and the others on the park, hitting six fours and half a dozen of risk-free sixes as India chased the target in 15.4 overs.
The three-match T20 series now stands at 1-1 and the final game will be played in Nagpur on November 10.
Such was Rohit's dominance during the 118-run opening stand that it managed to overshadow Shikhar Dhawan's (31 off 27 balls) wretched form.
Earlier, Indian bowlers led by Yuzvendra Chahal made an impressive comeback to restrict Bangladesh to a sub-par 153 for 6 and then the dew also played its part on a good track where the ball was coming onto the bat.
Rohit teed off in the fourth over of the innings when he hit an off-drive, followed by a cover drive and then a straight six off Mustafizur Rahaman.
It was difficult to come back from that point for Bangladesh as the Indian captain got boundaries and sixes at will.
Pacer Shafiul Islam was given the charge and hit over long-on for a six and slow sweep off spinner Afif Hossain brought up his 18th half-century in this format.
When off-spinner Mosaddek Hossain Saikat (0/21 in 1 over) tried to come round the wicket to try a negative line, Rohit hammered him for three sixes in the arc between long-on and mid-wicket.
Just when a fifth hundred in this format looked there for the taking, the skipper was out trying to hit a seventh six. Shreyas Iyer and KL Rahul then completed the formalities with 26 balls to spare.
Put into bat, Bangladesh could not capitalize on a good start as Chahal's (2-28) double breakthrough in the 13th over pegged the visitors back. A quick-fire 30 off 21 balls by skipper Mahmudullah Riyad helped them cross the 150-mark.
Openers Liton Das (29 off 21 balls, 4x4) and Mohammad Naim (36 off 31 balls, 5x4) shared a 60 run opening stand.
Naim slammed profligate left-arm pacer Khaleel Ahmed (1-44 from 4 overs) for three successive boundaries to start on rousing note.
Seamer Deepak Chahar (1-25) and off-spinner Washington Sundar (1-25) did manage to stem the flow of runs but Khaleel's poor show continued.
Chahal, on his introduction, had almost removed a set Liton, but Rishabh Pant's urge to complete glovework quickly gave the batsman lifeline.
The TV replays showed that while whipping the bails off, Pant collected the ball in front of the stumps and hence it was declared no-ball. As per the law, every part of wicket-keeper's gloves has to be behind the stumps.
Das then hammered two successive fours to add insult to injury.
He got another reprieve on 26 after skipper Rohit Sharma dropped him at square-leg following a mix-up with Shivam Dube and Pant. But Pant made up for his mistake and ran Das out, with a direct hit in the eighth over, to break the opening stand.
Das's wicket slowed the scoring rate and that put Naim under pressure, who then gave a dolly to Shreyas Iyer at deep-mid-wicket off Washington as Bangladesh slumped were 83 for 2 in the 11th over.
And then Yuzvendra picked two wickets in the 13th over --Mushfiqur Rahim (4 off 6 balls), who gave a sitter to Krunal Pandya and then removed a set Soumya Sarkar (30 off 20 balls; 2x4, 1x6) -- as Bangladesh were struggling at 103/4. Sarkar was stumped by Pant and they never got the momentum back.
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."
