Mumbai (PTI): Former Delhi captain Mithun Manhas on Sunday filed his nomination for the post of BCCI president at the Board's headquarters here ahead of the deadline later this afternoon.

Manhas, who played 157 First-Class, 130 List A and 91 T20s matches in a long domestic career from 1997-98 to 2016-17, had emerged as a front runner to take over the role left vacant by the exit of Roger Binny last month.

The 45-year-old Manhas' name came to the fore after an informal meeting held in New Delhi, during which it was decided to push his name forward for the role of BCCI president.

A few other key positions in the Indian cricket board will be filled up here next Sunday during the annual general meeting of the Board.

"A new body is being made for the next term. Mithun Manhas is a former player and it was decided to make him the president. Arun Dhumal is the chairman of the IPL governing council and he will continue in that position," BCCI vice president Rajeev Shukla told the media.

Among those who filed their nominations were BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia, IPL governing council chairman Arun Dhumal, and Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA)president and former India cricketer Raghuram Bhat, who is in the fray to become the Board's treasurer.

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.



New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre's response on a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, on the ground that those are allegedly discriminatory against women.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Panchol took note of the submissions made by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who appeared in the matter for petitioners Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation, and issued a notice to the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs.

The plea says the current Shariat inheritance rules are "manifestly discriminatory" against women, often granting them only half or less of the share allocated to their male counterparts.

Bhushan said the 1937 Act violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

He said matters of succession are civil in nature and do not constitute an "essential religious practice" protected under Article 25.

"Saying women will get half or even less than half compared to male counterparts is discriminatory," the lawyer said.