ACA initiates inquiry against Hanuma Vihari after senior batsman's revelations about mistreatment
Bengaluru, Feb 27: The bitter spat between Hanuma Vihari and Andhra Cricket Association took a fresh turn as the state body on Monday announced an inquiry against the senior batter, who had accused the ACA of forcing him to resign from captaincy at the start of the ongoing season.
Drama unfolded after Andhra's campaign in the Ranji Trophy ended in a defeat on Monday as Vihari announced that he will never play for the side due to "mistreatment" by the state association.
"Complaints were received from teammates, support staff and ACA administrators about Vihari's use of foul language and abusive behaviour. ACA will conduct a thorough inquiry into all complaints and the due course of action will be communicated," said the ACA in a media release.
Vihari had also hit out at a reserve team-mate (son of a politician) who he alleged had asked his father to take action against him after the veteran player shouted at him during a match.
ACA stated that it had received a complaint from the junior player about Vihari at that time.
"It has come to our attention that Mr Vihari personally verbally abuse a specific player during the Bengal Ranji game in front of everyone. The affected player filed an official compliant with the ACA," the release said.
Vihari had shared the copy of his statement on his X account signed by other players in the Andhra team with a one-line comment -- "the whole team knows (what had happened on that day)."
"Sad part is the association thinks that players have to listen to whatever they say and players are there because of them (association). I've decided that I'll never play for Andhra where I lost my self-respect.
"I love the team. I love the way we're growing every season but the association doesn't want us to grow," Vihari wrote on Instagram.
The middle-order batter, who has played 16 Tests for India, started the season as Andhra captain but stepped down after the first match against last year's runners-up Bengal.
Ricky Bhui led the team for the rest of the season.
At the time, Vihari attributed his decision to move away from leadership role due to "personal reasons" but now the right-handed batter said the association had asked him to resign.
"I was the captain in the first game against Bengal, during that game I shouted at the 17th player and he complained to his dad (who is a politician), his dad in return asked the association to take action against me.
"I was asked to resign from captaincy without any fault of mine. I never said anything on a personal note to the player," said Vihari.
But the ACA said the decision to appoint a new captain was taken in view of Vihari's possible non-availability because of him being an India prospect.
Later the player in question, KN Prudhvi Raj, took to Instagram and accused Vihari of making false claims.
"Hello everyone! I'm that guy, you guys are searching in the comment box, whatever you guys heard is absolutely false, no one is higher than the game and my self-respect is much bigger than anything.
"Personal attacks and vulgar language are unacceptable in any kind of human platform. Everyone in the team knows what happened that day Mr so called champion. Play this sympathy game however you want," wrote Prudhvi.
Vihari has also expressed grouse that the association did not value his sacrifices for the team over the years, recalling last year's Ranji Trophy quarterfinal match against Madhya Pradesh when he played through an injury.
"The association thought that player was more important than the guy who gave his body on the line last year and batted left-handed, took Andhra to knock outs 5 times in the last 7 years and played for India in 16 Tests.
"I felt embarrassed but the only reason I continued playing this season was because I respect the game and my team," he added.
Ahead of the 2023-2024 domestic season, Vihari was also linked with a switch to Madhya Pradesh but he decided to stay on with Andhra.
The ACA said it was Vihari who reversed the decision and decided to stay on with Andhra team.
The whole team knows! ❤️ pic.twitter.com/l5dFkmjGN9
— Hanuma vihari (@Hanumavihari) February 26, 2024
Keep trying!! 👏🏻👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/Wggq0cFisU
— Hanuma vihari (@Hanumavihari) February 26, 2024
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.
