Harmanpreet's brace hands India 2-1 win over Pakistan in Asian Champions Trophy hockey
Hulunbuir (China), Sep 14: Skipper Harmanpreet Singh continued his golden run of form that he has been carrying since Paris Olympics, converting two penalty corners to become the chief architect of India's narrow 2-1 victory over arch-rivals Pakistan in their final league match of the Hero Asian Champions Trophy hockey tournament here on Saturday.
It was India's fifth consecutive win in the six-team round-robin competition.
Pakistan took the lead through Ahmad Nadeem (8th minute) before Harmanpreet (13th, 19th) converted two penalty corners to fashion India's victory over familiar foes. It was Pakistan's first loss in this tournament.
Both India and Pakistan have already qualified for the semifinals. The victory also enabled India to maintain their supremacy over Pakistan since 2016.
In their previous meeting at the Hangzhou Asian Games last year, India thrashed Pakistan 10-2. A few months before that, the Indians beat Pakistan 4-0 during the Chennai edition of the ACT.
At the Asia Cup in Jakarta (2022), a relatively young Indian side held Pakistan to a 1-1 draw while at the 2021 ACT in Dhaka, India defeated Pakistan 4-3 to clinch the bronze medal.
In other matches of the day, Malaysia and Korea played out a 3-3 draw, while hosts China beat Japan 2-0.
Paris Olympic bronze medallist and clear favourites, India will take on Korea in the semifinal, while Pakistan will face China.
As like any Indo-Pak hockey match, the first quarter saw end-to-end action with both the teams giving their all to gain the bragging rights.
The Indians started brightly dominating the early share of exchanges but Pakistan grew in confidence as the match progressed.
India were at the receiving end for the first time in the tournament when Pakistan drew the first blood.
It was a selfless Hannan Shahid whose brilliant work from the midfield split the Indian defence and Nadeem found himself at the right place to direct the ball into the Indian goal.
A stunned India kept up their composure and patiently built their attacks and secured their first penalty corner in the 13th minute. Skipper Harmanpreet scored with a powerful drag-flick to the left of a hapless Pakistan goalkeeper Munneb.
The Indians continued to press in the second quarter and gained their second penalty corner in the 19th minute and once again Pakistan defence had no answer as Harmanpreet was bang on target with India taking decisive 2-1 lead.
While India were the better side in terms of possession in the second quarter, Pakistan also had their chances, penetrating the rival circle on quite a few occasions.
Just 45 seconds from half-time Pakistan had an opportunity to draw level through a penalty corner but they wasted the chance as Sufyan Khan's flick, which hit the top of cross-bar, was rejected for a raised ball.
The Indians sustained possession after the change of ends and secured their third penalty corner in the 37th minute, but Pakistan defended bravely.
Thereafter, a sustained spell of attacks helped Pakistanis to bag four penalty corners in quick succession but lacked the firepower to breach the Indian defence.
In the last quarter, both the sides relentlessly attacked and India secured three more short corners but failed to convert anyone of them.
The match also witnessed a heated encounter between Harmanpreet and Pakistan's Ashraf Waheed Rana after the latter shouldered Jugraj Singh inside the Indian circle.
Jugraj was felled by the impact and was seen grimacing in pain. Harmanpreet and Jarmanpreet Singh were quick to counter the offender.
The on-field umpires and Pakistan captain Ammad Butt and other players of both teams rushed in to control the situation but Rana was shown yellow card, which resulted in a 10-minute suspension after the umpire went for a referral for a serious misconduct.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
