Kumar Dharmasena admits his 'error' in World Cup 2019 final overthrow controversy
Colombo: The umpire who awarded England six runs from a freak overthrow in the last over of the World Cup final has admitted he made an "error" and should have given one run fewer, a report said on Sunday.
A throw to the stumps deflected off the bat of a diving Ben Stokes as he tried to complete a second run and raced to the boundary, with Sri Lankan umpire Kumar Dharmasena awarding six runs to England. Three balls later, the scores at 50 overs were tied as England had reached 241 all-out replying to New Zealand's 241-8.
It took the nail-biting final to a Super Over which again was tied but England lifted the trophy by virtue of having scored more boundaries. Critics, including former umpire Simon Taufel, said England should have been awarded five runs, not six, as the batsmen had not crossed for the second run at the moment the ball was thrown.
Former Sri Lankan Test player Dharmasena told the Sunday Times that he did not have the benefit of television replays which could show that the batsmen had not crossed. "I agree that there was an error of judgement when I see it on TV replays now," said Dharmasena, who was umpiring the final with South Africa's Marais Erasmus.
"But we did not have the luxury of TV replays at the ground and I do not regret the decision I made," Dharmasena said he signalled six after consulting the other match officials. "So, I did consult the leg umpire (Erasmus) through the communication system which is heard by all other umpires and the match referee," he told the newspaper.
"While they cannot check TV replays, they all confirmed that the batsmen have completed the second run. This is when I made my decision." Taufel had told Fox Sports Australia that the umpires made a "clear mistake" as the batsmen had not crossed for their second run.
But the Australian also defended the match umpires, who he said, had to make a complicated judgement and said it would be "unfair" to say the decision altered the outcome of the tournament as it was impossible to know what would have happened in the final balls had five runs been awarded.
Courtesy: www.firstpost.com
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.
