Mayank Agarwal smashes career-best 243, India 493/6 at stumps
Indore, Nov 15: Opener Mayank Agarwal grinded a below-par Bangladesh bowling unit with a career-best second double hundred as India buried the visitors under a deluge of runs on the second day of the opening Test here on Friday.
Agarwal's third Test hundred, 243 off 330 balls, formed the cornerstone of India's 493 for 6, which gave the home side a sizeable lead of 343 runs.
Friday solely belonged to Agarwal, who in this particular innings, managed to overshadow a batting line-up that has Rohit Sharma (6), Cheteshwar Pujara (54 off 72 balls), skipper Virat Kohli (0) and Ajinkya Rahane (86 off 172 balls) in its ranks.
Agarwal's partnership of 91 for the second wicket with Pujara and 190 for the fourth wicket with Rahane were however important in the context of the Indian innings.
A whirlwind partnership of 123 in 23.5 overs with Ravindra Jadeja (60 batting) for the fifth wicket only added insult to injury for Bangladesh.
The match might be over inside three days if India declare overnight.
Bangladesh's brittle batting line-up may not have the mental capacity to withstand India's pace barrage if first innings was any indicator.
For Agarwal, his voracious appetite for runs, carefully cultivated through solid performances at the domestic and India 'A' level, is paying dividends.
Exactly one year ago, Agarwal was in the fringe, scoring those "Daddy Hundreds" but lost out to the prodigious talent of Prithvi Shaw, who was given preference and a headstart at the international arena.
Destiny, however, had other plans as Shaw got injured and also lost a bit of focus. That was the opening Agarwal was looking for and he is showing with each innings that he is not going anywhere too soon.
The Shubman Gills and the Shaws may have to wait a wee bit longer.
Having scored those tough runs Down Under, Agarwal has now earned the right to consolidate his place with some heavy duty scoring. And he is doing that exactly.
It did help that Bangladesh got their bowling combination awfully wrong.
On a pitch, where someone with express pace and variation was needed, the visitors fielded two specialist spinners in left-arm orthodox Taijul Islam (0/120 in 28 overs) and off-spinner Mehidy Hasan Miraj (1/115 in 27 overs).
The spin duo was like lambs for slaughter as Agarwal went after them with all his might.
All the eight sixes that he hit came off the two spinners. This apart, he also hit 28 boundaries during his career-best international score.
The coveted double hundred came by lofting Miraj over long-on while the stand-out six was an inside out over extra cover off Taijul. Then there was one down the ground and a couple over long-off.
The spinners were either bowling too short or too full outside the off-stump. At one stage, Miraj, a former Bangladesh U-19 captain, completely lost confidence as he started coming round the wicket.
The negative field placement for an off-spinner -- a deep point for saving a cut shot and deep square leg for saving a pull-shot -- was a reflection of Bangladesh's approach.
Abu Jayed (4/108 in 25 overs) was the only bowler, who showed some heart getting the wickets of Pujara, Kohli and Rahane but his new ball Ebadot Hossain (1/115 in 31 overs) neither had pace nor the variation to trouble the Indian batsmen.
They attacked him at will and defended when they found it necessary.
The lack of pace also became a factor and the pitch on which Indian pacers looked menacing, Bangladesh's medium pacers merely went through the motions.
Each boundary left their shoulders dropping further and by the time Agarwal was out trying to hit his ninth six, the visitors had resigned to the fate that the remainder of this Test match will now be a mere formality.
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."
