Day 2: India 69/0, lead by 332 runs at stumps
Mumbai, Dec 4: Mumbai-born New Zealand left-arm spinner Ajaz Patel had an unforgettable afternoon when he entered the annals of Test cricket history with a 10-wicket haul but Indian bowlers made it a forgettable evening for him as well as his team by dismissing the visitors for a paltry 62, taking a massive stride towards a series victory.
By the end of the day, India were 69 for no loss in their second innings with Virat Kohli deciding against enforcing the follow-on in second and final Test.
Cheteshwar Pujara, coming out to open in place of an injured Shubman Gill, looked good during his 29 not out while Mayank Agarwal, after his fine 150 in India's first innings total of 325, remained unbeaten on 38.
The lead swelled to 332 for the hosts and in these conditions, the Indians will brace up for a three-day finish to earn some rest before boarding the charter flight to Johannesburg on December 16.
The second day of the second Test should have solely belonged to the 34-year-old Patel, who had figures of 42.5-12-119-10, to join the 'Elite List', where he has late Jim Laker and Indian great Anil Kumble for company.
By keeping India's first innings total down to a manageable level, Patel must have had a sense of elation but before the plethora of congratulatory messages on social media would stop coming, his batters just flattered to deceive as they managed to bat out only 28.1 overs.
The team ended up scoring the lowest total by an overseas side on Indian soil.
The Black Caps batted 14.4 overs less than what their premier spinner took to get all the Indian players out.
They didn't even let the feat sink in before Mohammed Siraj's (3/19) hostile four over spell literally decimated them. There were two deliveries that straightened and had enough pace to beat the batter's defence while the other was a mean bouncer.
Ravichandran Ashwin (4/8 in 8 overs) and Axar Patel (2/14 in 9.1 overs) were expectedly just too good on this track. The opposition batters simply couldn't counter the turn and bounce.
The New Zealand innings finished even before the Indian bowlers were nicely warmed up and it was understandable that Kohli wanted some batting time against a battered opposition which would give him and Puara requisite confidence.
With the match all but in their pocket, Pujara stroked freely and also got a pulled six off Patel -- a rarity from an exponent of defensive batting.
While Pujara will certainly value these welcome runs but it can't be seen in isolation that it came when the pressure was already completely released due to a mammoth 263-run first innings lead.
Patel started the day with two quick wickets before Agarwal and Axar added 67 runs for the seventh wicket to take the score towards the 300-run mark. Axar got his first 50 and batted with a lot of caution and occasional aggression.
The best delivery of the six wickets that he got on the day, was the one that got Ravichandran Ashwin out as he drew the batter forward and turned enough to clip the bails.
Ashwin hilariously appealed for DRS without realising that he has been bowled as he thought that the bowler had appealed for caught behind.
The review was wasted as he had already asked for it and once he realised that he was beaten lock, stock and barrel, he didn't wait for the final verdict.
No wonder when Patel got Siraj as his 10th and final victim, Ashwin was seen giving him a standing ovation from the Indian dressing room.
But little would Patel have known that it would turn into an anti-climax after Siraj's opening burst which was as good as one saw in home Test matches where pitches aren't conducive for pace bowling. However, this one had extra bounce.
The delivery that got Ross Taylor out was perhaps the best of the match.
The ball came in as Taylor shaped to play a defensive shot only to find enough deviation which beat the outside edge of his bat and knock back the off-stump.
That was one of a kind dismissal after which there was no chance of a recovery for the New Zealanders, who will now only look to delay the inevitable.
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 refuses review of decision against confiscating funds received via electoral bonds
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking the review of its decision rejecting the petitions for confiscating Rs 16,518 crore received by political parties under the 2018 electoral bond scheme.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the review plea filed by one Khem Singh Bhati against the top court's decision of August 2, 2024.
The apex court had then rejected the petition seeking confiscation of money received under the scheme.
The bench on March 26 held, "The review petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
The top court's order, made available recently, also refused to accept Bhati's prayer for an open-court hearing in the matter.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by former CJI D Y Chandrachud on February 15 last year scrapped the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding introduced by the BJP government.
Following the top court's judgement, the State Bank of India, the authorised financial institution under the scheme, shared the data with the election commission which made it public.
The electoral bonds scheme, which was notified by the government on January 2, 2018, was pitched as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties as part of its efforts to bring in transparency in political funding.
The top court, on August 2 last year, rejected a batch of pleas including the one filed by Bhati for a court-monitored probe into the electoral bonds scheme and observed it couldn't order a roving inquiry.
The review plea, filed through advocate Jayesh K Unnikrishnan and settled by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, said on February 15, 2024 the apex court in Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India held the scheme unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"The effect of declaring the electoral bond scheme and the various statutory provisions as unconstitutional is that the said scheme never existed and is void ab-initio and it is a settled position of law that the court only finds law and it does not make law," it argued.
The verdict in the ADR case, the plea said, rendered the EBS void since inception, and therefore, the subsequent pleas seeking confiscation of the amount collected by political parties could not have been dismissed.
"In the absence of any declaration by this court in the ADR case that the judgement would apply prospectively, the existence of the electoral bond scheme on the date of purchase could not have been the basis for dismissal of the present writ petition. The scheme stood wiped out for all purposes from the date of inception and the necessary consequences must follow,” it added.
The plea said the previous bench's reliance on the existence of parliamentary legislation permitting electoral bonds to dismiss the writ petition constituted an "apparent error on the face of the record".
The ADR judgment did not declare its findings to be prospective, which means the statutory framework supporting electoral bonds should have been treated as invalid from the outset, it contended.
The applicant claimed the verdict had a retrospective effect, rendering the scheme null and void since its inception.
The review plea claimed the August 2, 2024 verdict "indirectly modified the ADR judgment".
The plea said evidence disclosed under court directions indicated a quid pro quo between donations made through the scheme and the benefits received by corporate donors, contradicting the bench's conclusion on the claims being speculative.
"Disclosure of information regarding electoral bonds in terms of the direction of this court clearly establish that there was quid pro quo between the donations made to the political parties and benefits received by the corporate houses and the observation...that the writ petition is based on assumption about quid pro quo between the donor and donee and the petitioner is seeking a roving inquiry, suffers from apparent error," it added.
