Is boundary countback fair? Never thought I'd answer that: Kane Williamson
London: A "gutted" New Zealand captain Kane Williamson finds it difficult to accept that his team lost the World Cup final to England on a "boundary countback" rule but the revered "gentleman" of the 'Gentlemen's game' isn't angry about it.
New Zealand lost to England in perhaps the greatest World Cup final at the Lord's on Sunday due to inferior boundary count (16 in 50 overs to hosts' 24) after both the regulation 50 overs and the Super Over ended in ties.
"I suppose you never thought you would have to ask that question and I never thought I would have to answer it (smiling)," was his reaction when asked about the rule.
"While the emotions are raw, it is pretty hard to swallow when two teams have worked really, really hard to get to this moment in time.
"When sort of two attempts to separate them with a winner and a loser it still doesn't perhaps sort of shine with one side coming through, you know," Williamson summed it up nicely.
However, like a true sportsman, he had no intention of questioning the questionable rules set by governing body, slammed as "ridiculous" by former cricketers.
"It is what it is, really. The rules are there at the start. No-one probably thought they would have to sort of result to some of that stuff. A great game of cricket and all you guys probably enjoyed it," he said.
There were the "uncontrollables" like the Martin Guptill overthrow which hit a lunging Ben Stokes' bat and went for six overthrows in the 50th over of the England innings.
Williamson, after a break, he would like to have a chat and reflect on the tough evening.
"As to everyone else, I think they are still here, they want more. But we are looking forward to putting our feet up now and having a bit of a chat and reflection about our campaign," he said.
Whether it's the overthrows off a rebound or boundary count-back, Williamson says that he can't blame the rules which have been in place for some time now.
"The rules are there I guess, aren't they. And certainly something you don't consider going into the match that maybe if we could have an extra boundary and then tied two attempts at winning, it we will get across the line and they didn't think that either," he said.
There was a lot of pain in his smile. The eyes were a giveaway. What could he have done, laugh, cry or be angry at what happened an hour back?
"Laugh or cry, it's your choice, isn't it? It's not anger. There's a lot of disappointment, I suppose. Yeah, the guys are really feeling it and I think it's probably more down to some of the uncontrollables that go on when they have put in such a huge amount of effort," he said.
A journalist wanted to remind Williamson that he has used a lot of smart phrases like "uncontrollable" and "thin margins" and the skipper stopped him in his tracks.
"Dogs as well, I have used dogs," he laughed referring to terms like "underdogs" and "party-poopers" used by the British media before the start of the finals.
There couldn't have been a better final. "Yeah, everybody loved it? The English loved it more than we did, I think," he quipped.
Trent Boult touched the boundary ropes during the dying moments trying to latch onto a catch and Williamson very sportingly told umpire Marais Erasmus to signal a six.
A TV replay could have been demanded but he knew that his fielder had touched the ropes.
So doesn't he expect all players to be gentleman like him? No, he doesn't, Williamson made it clear that it is to each his own.
"Everybody is allowed to be themselves. That is a good thing about the world. And everybody should be a little bit different as well. Really difficult question to answer< he said.
"That is probably my best answer, just be yourself and try and enjoy what you do," he left the room amid a standing ovation.
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 dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
