I've never seen something like that before: Stokes on Ranchi pitch
Ranchi (PTI): England captain Ben Stokes added spice to the talks on Ranchi pitch for the fourth Test against India, saying he has not seen anything remotely like the 22-yard strip here in the past.
India are leading the five-match series 2-1 and the penultimate Test will start here on Friday.
However, discussion about the "platey cracks" on the pitch as described by England batter Ollie Pope has dominated the build-up to this Test.
Stokes added a touch of intrigue as well.
"It looked interesting, didn't it? I don't know. I can't say much. I don't know, I've never seen something like that before so I have no idea. I don't know what could happen," Stokes was quoted as saying by ESPNCricinfo.
It indeed was an ominous reading of the playing surface, if you are from the England camp.
But then Stokes had a reason for it as well. "If you looked down one side of opposite ends it just looked different to what I am used to seeing, especially out in India.
It looked green and grassy up in the changing-rooms, but then you go out there, it looked different. Very dark and crumbly and quite a few cracks in it," Stokes offered.
The nature of the pitch also delayed England making a decision on their playing 11. Pacer Ollie Robinson will come in for Mark Wood but the call to add fourth spinner in Shoaib Bashir or an extra batter in Dan Lawrence will have to wait for now.
Lawrence can also double up as a handy off-spinner.
"He's (Robinson) got unbelievable skills to be a successful bowler anywhere in the world. What we've seen in England is he's very skillful, but we've seen more than that in Pakistan.
"It's similar but different here, but the skill he possesses, he can find any movement, and his release point is always going to be dangerous," said Stokes.
So, will Stokes finally wear his bowling cloak? The Durham man remained a bit secretive.
"My knee itself was absolutely fine today bowling. It was just good to push past that 20-minute barrier, which is what I've been working around at the moment. It might be a bit stiff but we'll wait and see," he noted.
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.
