BCB sends another letter to ICC asking for venue change for its T20WC games
New Delhi (PTI): The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) on Thursday formally sent a second communication to the ICC, explaining the specific security concerns about travelling to India for the T20 World Cup while reiterating its demand for a change of venue to Sri Lanka.
The World Cup gets underway on February 7 and Bangladesh are scheduled to play four games (three in Kolkata and one in Mumbai).
They have refused to travel to India after pacer Mustafizur Rahman was released from the IPL on instructions of the BCCI, which cited unspecified "developments all around" to justify the decision.
"Following discussions with sports ministry advisor Asif Nazrul, the BCB has once again sent a communication to the ICC. The ICC wanted to know areas of concern with regards to security and BCB has cited them," a source close to the cricket board told PTI on conditions of anonymity.
ALSO READ: ICC willing to work with us to address security concerns on playing in India: BCB
However, he did not elaborate on the specifics of the letter.
The development comes amid sustained back-and-forth between the BCB and the ICC over Bangladesh's participation. The global body has maintained a stoic silence so far and has sought clarity on the exact nature of the security apprehensions being flagged by the Dhaka-based board.
It is understood that the BCB itself is divided on the issue.
While one section of the board is backing Nazrul's hardline stance on the matter, another group is in favour of keeping channels of discussion open with the ICC and Indian authorities.
They are stressing on the need for enhanced and foolproof security arrangements for the entire Bangladesh team during its stay in India.
Nazrul, who has been vocal in his criticism of India in the past, is learnt to have pushed a more uncompromising line, a marked departure from the BCB's traditionally cordial working relationship with the BCCI.
Mustafizur's release followed incidents involving attacks on minorities in Bangladesh.
As of now, the ICC hasn't given any indication that it would shift Bangladesh's venues from Kolkata and Mumbai to Colombo.
The BCB has, however, asserted that the ICC has shown willingness to work with it in assessing the security concerns.
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.
Stray dogs case: SC refuses to go into allegation of harassment of women dog feeders
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.
Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women in the issue.
A three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria observed that some of the arguments made before it were "far from reality" and there were a number of videos of stray dogs attacking children and the elderly.
The top court was hearing arguments on pleas, including the ones filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders and those for stringent compliance with the directives.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and caregivers and said anti-feeder vigilantes have assumed the role of enforcing the apex court's order passed earlier in the matter. "Under the garb of this, they are harassing women, they are molesting women, and they are beating women," she said.
Justice Nath observed, "Lodge an FIR against them. Who stops you?"
The bench said that if anyone was harassing or molesting women, it was a crime, and the aggrieved person could set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR.
When Pavani referred to an incident where a dog feeder was attacked in her house, the bench said, "All this is a criminal offence. You lodge an FIR against that".
"We can't take up these individual cases where something is going wrong somewhere. This court is not going to monitor that. That is a law-and-order problem," Justice Nath observed.
Pavani said that in Haryana, certain societies hired bouncers to remove dog feeders, and a woman was slapped in Ghaziabad, but no FIR was lodged.
"We are not going to accept this. If a criminal offence is committed, an FIR will be registered. There are procedures available to you, remedies available, and how to get it registered," the bench said.
The senior advocate flagged the issue of unregulated breeding and exotic imports.
"Again, this has nothing to do with the stray dogs issue. There are remedies in the Act and the rules. Don't make this a platform for other objects. You address us on the issues which we are dealing with in this matter," the bench said.
It said the import of the top court's order was very clear, and it was restricted to stray dogs only. "Tomorrow, you will say why Cheetahs have been imported to Kuno (national park). Why not take care of the local breeds? This is too much. Sorry," Justice Mehta said.
When Pavani argued that derogatory remarks were being made regarding women in the matter, the bench said, "How is that relevant in this context?"
"Even though we are being criticised in very derogatory language, we don't react," Justice Nath said, adding that one can take action on this issue.
"We have not given any kind of licence to people to talk like this. If they are talking like this, you take action against them," the bench said.
The bench also heard submissions of other lawyers, including senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat, in the matter.
When one of the lawyers referred to a dog at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the bench asked whether it was taken even to the operation theatre.
"Any dog on the street is bound to have ticks. And a dog with ticks in a hospital, do you understand what disastrous consequences would befall?" the bench posed. "Don't try to glorify that there was a dog at AIIMS".
Singhvi said this was now not entirely a matter about dogs or humans, and it was about certain constitutional principles.
At the fag end of the hearing, a lawyer said he has put up videos if the court would like to see them. "There are 'n' number of videos on YouTube of dogs attacking children, dogs attacking old people," the bench observed.
The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue on January 13.
While hearing arguments on Thursday, the bench said it had not directed the removal of every dog from the streets, and the directive was to treat stray canines according to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules.
It had earlier flagged the non-compliances of rules and directions by civic bodies and said people were dying not only due to dog bites alone in the country but also because of accidents caused by stray animals on roads.
Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.
It also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back in the place they were picked up. It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.
_vb_27.jpeg)