Even Rohit, Kohli should play domestic cricket when free: Kirti Azad
New Delhi (PTI): Member of the 1983 World Cup-winning team Kirti Azad on Thursday backed the BCCI's directive for cricketers to play Ranji Trophy, saying it's a good move and the rule should be applicable to every India team player, including Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli.
The out-of-favour duo of Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer were excluded from the list of centrally-contracted players after they ignored the directive to play Ranji Trophy.
"It (directive) is a very good move. Everybody should be playing Ranji Trophy cricket, but currently the emphasis is on the IPL. It is good, it is entertaining but the real cricket is the (five) days' cricket. Playing in domestic cricket is good, it keeps you in touch.
"But whenever you are free, even if you're a Rohit Sharma or a Virat Kohli, you should go back and play domestic cricket for the state. That (state) gave you the opportunity to be a player, get selected and then play for the country.
ALSO READ: Rohit, Virat remain in top bracket; Kishan, Iyer dropped from BCCI central contracts
He felt that penalising just Ishan and Iyer wasn't right.
"Just to penalise the two is not correct, I think everybody should be penalised. Everybody should be seen with the same mirror," Azad told PTI Video.
Azad declined to comment on whether this was the potential end of the road for Ishan and Iyer after their names were excluded from the list of centrally-contracted players.
"My question is, are they playing enough domestic cricket? They are playing T20 cricket, nowadays and every other state has a T20 cricket league. Back in the days when we were starting our careers, players like Bishan Singh Bedi, Madan Lal, Surinder Amarnath, Mohinder Amarnath, Chetan Chauhan, Sunil Gavaskar, Sandeep Patil, Karsan Ghavri played alongside youngsters like me and Ravi Shastri.
"All these senior Test team players would play for their sides, would play for the pride of their state which seems missing in the youngsters nowadays," he added.
He questioned why India players had issues playing domestic cricket while England cricketers willingly played county cricket when not in the national side.
"Look at county cricket; there are 20-plus counties and there are numerous three-day and four-day games along with T20 cricket, but every player is involved there. If a player is left out of the Test squad, then he returns to play for his county.
"So why can't we have our players playing those domestic matches, that's the big question," he added.
He praised players like Dhruv Jurel and Sarfaraz Khan for finding the balance between T20 cricket for their IPL teams and playing Ranji Trophy.
"There are players like Jurel, Sarfaraz who do play T20 cricket but, at the end of the day, are also representing their states in the Ranji trophy. The bowlers also get into the rhythm of bowling longer spells when they regularly play domestic cricket. It (Ranji) is not a form of slam-bang and thank you," he said.
VIDEO | Here's what former cricketer Kirti Azad (@KirtiAzaad) said on #BCCI dropping Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer from central contract.
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) February 29, 2024
"It's a good move. I think everybody should be playing domestic cricket, Ranji Trophy especially, because you come through the ranks and play… pic.twitter.com/wcndYPLl6o
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.
