1st T20I: India gets 96 runs target against West Indies
Lauderhill (USA), Aug 3: Debutant pacer Navdeep Saini claimed three wickets in an impressive spell as India restrict a reckless West Indies to a paltry 95 for 9 in their first T20 International match here on Saturday.
Opting to field, all the six Indian bowlers got at least a wicket apiece with Saini returning with figures of 3/17 in his debut match. The Indians were also helped by the reckless approach of West Indian batsmen.
There was no substantive partnership in the West Indies innings with the highest being the 34 between captain Carlos Brathwaite (9) and top-scorer Kieron Pollard (49) for the sixth wicket. Nicholas Pooran (20) was the only other West Indies batsman to score double digit figures.
India opened bowling with off-spinner Washington Sundar (1/18) and got a wicket in the second ball itself with John Campbell slapping straight to deep midwicket fielder Krunal Pandya.
The other opener Evin Lewis fell in the second over with pacer Bhuvneshwar Kumar (2/19) beating him with a knuckle ball to rattle his timber. Both the openers failed to open their accounts as the West Indies were reduced to 8/2.
Despite the two quick wickets, the West Indians continued to be aggressive in their approach and Saini exploited the situation by claiming two wickets in two balls in the fifth over.
Pooran, who was looking dangerous after hitting two sixes, went for a big shot but the ball ballooned up in the air for wicketkeeper Rishab Pant to take an easy catch. Shimron Hetmyer (0) then dragged the ball onto the stump for Saini's second wicket.
West Indies procession to the dressing room continued with Rovman Powell (4) felling to Khaleel Ahmed (1/8) the next over 6th as they were reduced to 33 for 5 at the end of Powerplay.
Pollard and Brathwaite curbed their attacking instincts for a while and played some sensible cricket to remain united for eight wickets during which they added 34 runs.
Brathwaite and Sunil Narine got dismissed in the 15th and 16th overs respectively as West Indies could touch 100 in the end.
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.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
