Novak Djokovic threatens crowd that booed him at Wimbledon
Novak Djokovic, the reigning Wimbledon champion and a four-time consecutive winner of the tournament, has faced an unexpected challenge from the crowd during his first two matches at this year's Championships. Known for his dominance on the court and his pursuit of tennis history, Djokovic arrived with the aim of joining Roger Federer in the record books for the most title wins at SW19 in the Open Era.
However, the Serbian player was left disgruntled by the reaction of the spectators, who booed him during his matches against Pedro Cachin and Jordan Thompson. Despite securing straight-set victories in both encounters, Djokovic appeared visibly distracted as the majority of the Centre Court crowd rallied behind his opponents. While he has faced hostile conditions from the crowd throughout his career, the cheers against him seemed particularly difficult for him to accept.
In a statement to Serbian media, Djokovic expressed his frustration but also found motivation in the situation. He remarked, "They're actually doing me a favor. The more they cheer against me, the better off I am. With me, they wake up to something they might not want to see - a winner. As a player, you want to have the majority of the crowd on your side, I don't want to play in a belligerent atmosphere."
While Djokovic admitted that he often finds himself in such situations, where the crowd supports his opponents, he acknowledged that it can be challenging to accept at times. However, he also recognized the spectators' right to cheer for his rivals. Djokovic's reaction at the end of his match against Thompson, where he cupped his hand over his ear, reflected his disappointment and desire to respond to the crowd's behavior.
The experience of facing adversarial crowds is not new to Djokovic, as it has occurred in major tournaments around the world. Nevertheless, he views it as an opportunity to find additional motivation and elevate his game. He stated, "It gives me fuel and additional motivation, it inspires me to play even better."
In the upcoming third round, Djokovic will face his familiar rival Stan Wawrinka. Although Wawrinka trails Djokovic 6-20 in their head-to-head encounters, he has emerged victorious in four of their last five Grand Slam meetings. The match promises to be an intriguing battle between two formidable competitors.
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.
