IPL: Watson, Dhoni star as Chennai beat Delhi
Pune, April 30: Dominating batting from Shane Watson and skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni helped Chennai Super Kings (CSK) beat Delhi Daredevils by 13 runs in an Indian Premier League match here on Monday.
The win also saw Chennai sitting at the top spot with 12 points in eight matches while Delhi languish at the bottom of the table with four points.
After posting 211/4 with opener Shane Watson (78), Dhoni (51 not out) and Ambati Rayudu (41 not out) scoring handsomely, Chennai bowlers restricted Delhi to 198/5 in their allotted 20 overs.
Middle-order batsman Rishabh Pant (79 runs off 45 balls;) and Vijay Shankar (54 not out) were the only players who faced the Chennai bowlers valiantly but their innings went in vain as no other batter rose to the occasion and went back cheaply.
Big names Colin Munro (26), skipper Shreyas Iyer (13), who played a huge role in Delhi's last win and Glenn Maxwell (6) failed to score which resulted in their loss.
For Chennai, K.M. Asif took two wickets while Lungi Ngidi and Ravindra Jadeja chipped in with one wicket each.
Brief Scores: Chennai Super Kings: 211/4 (Shane Watson 78, Mahendra Singh Dhoni 51; Glenn Maxwell 1/5, Amit Mishra 1/30) vs Delhi Daredevils: 198/5 (Rishabh Pant 79; KM Asif 2/43)
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.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
