Just Stop Oil protestors briefly disrupt Ashes cricket test between England and Australia
London, June 28: Two protestors from the Just Stop Oil group ran onto the field at Lords and briefly disrupted play about five minutes after the start of the second Ashes cricket test between England and Australia on Wednesday.
The environmental activists tried to spread orange powder on the field but the England and Australia players intervened.
England wicketkeeper Jonny Bairstow tackled one protestor and carried the person about 50 meters (yards) before leaving him in the hands of security over the boundary hoardings. England captain Ben Stokes and Australia batter David Warner corralled the other protestor.
Some orange powder was released but only on the grass, away from the pitch.
Bairstow went to the England changing room to clean himself of some powder, Lord's staff quickly cleaned up what little orange fell on the grass, and play resumed about five minutes later.
Just Stop Oil protestors have disrupted other major sporting events in Britain this year. They held up the England team bus briefly during the test against Ireland in London this month, and have targeted Premier League soccer matches, the Premiership rugby final at Twickenham, and the world snooker championship in Sheffield.
The activists want the British government to stop new fuel licensing and production.
Bairstow picking up a pitch invader#Ashes pic.twitter.com/vCWCkXb3IA
— England's Barmy Army 🏴🎺 (@TheBarmyArmy) June 28, 2023
Good start to the 2nd test.
— Ashwin 🇮🇳 (@ashwinravi99) June 28, 2023
Bairstow has done some heavy lifting already😂😂 #Ashes2023 pic.twitter.com/f0JcZnCvEr
England's Jonny Bairstow removes a Just Spoilt Brat activist from the pitch. #JustStopOil pic.twitter.com/6ydzW07IeK
— Paul Golding (@GoldingBF) June 28, 2023
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.
