Outrage as Mukesh Kumar wears Virat Kohli's iconic No. 18 jersey in unofficial test vs England Lions
Canterbury: India A pacer Mukesh Kumar sparked a wave of criticism online after walking out in Virat Kohli’s iconic No. 18 jersey during the first unofficial Test against the England Lions. Kohli, who recently retired from Test cricket, made the number synonymous with his career, and many fans took to social media to express their displeasure over another player donning it.
Kohli, who scored 9,230 runs in 123 Test matches and led India in 68 of them, had worn the No. 18 jersey throughout his red-ball career. Following his sudden retirement on 12 May, the number holds deep emotional value for his fans, with some demanding that the BCCI retire it in his honour, similar to Sachin Tendulkar’s No. 10 jersey.
“Mukesh Kumar wearing our Virat Kohli's number 18 jersey. How dare he? What is his Instagram?” read one of the widely circulated posts on X (formerly Twitter), reflecting the emotional backlash from Kohli’s supporters.
Mukesh Kumar, who has previously worn the No. 49 jersey, has not commented on the number switch. It is unclear whether the decision was deliberate or an administrative oversight. The BCCI has also not issued any statement on the matter.
Meanwhile, Mukesh made an impact with the ball, taking three wickets and helping India A mount a comeback. Despite Max Holden's century, the England Lions reached 333 for five at lunch on the penultimate day, trailing by 224 runs. Overnight centurion Tom Haines (142) was still at the crease alongside Dan Mousley (2).
Though Mukesh’s performance drew praise, the jersey controversy continues to trend online, with Kohli fans seeing the number 18 as more than just a shirt, for many, it symbolises an unforgettable chapter in Indian cricket history.
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 to hear pleas for reviewing wages of priests, temple staff
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a plea to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the wages and other benefits given to priests, 'sevadars' and temple staff in state-controlled temples.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta is likely to hear the PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, seeks directions to the Centre and states to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the remuneration and other benefits given to the priests and temple staff in state-controlled temples.
"Petitioner also seeks a declaration that priests and temple staff are employee' under Section 2(k) of the Code on Wages, 2019. Petitioner submits that once the State assumes the administrative, economic and financial control over temples, an employer-employee relationship arises and denial of dignified wages to priests and temple staff violates the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21," it said.
Upadhyay said the cause of action accrued on April 4, when he went to Varanasi to attend a public programme and after performing 'Rudrabhishek' in the Kashi Vishwanath temple, which is controlled by the state, he came to know that even the minimum wages to live with dignity are not given to the priests and temple staff.
"Recently, in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, priests and temple staff organised a large-scale protest demanding the minimum wages. Priests and temple staff are not getting even the minimum wage prescribed by the State for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. This is a systemic exploitation. State is acting as a model employer through the endowments department, but violating the minimum wages Act and the directive principles of state policy (Article 43)," it said.
The plea further said the continued refusal to meet the minimum wages with the 2026 inflation-adjusted cost of living index has forced the petitioner to seek judicial intervention to prevent the further marginalisation of priests and temple staff.
Upadhyay further said the precarious nature of livelihood was starkly exposed on February 7, 2025, when a Tamil Nadu department issued a circular at the 'Dandayuthapani Swami Temple' in Madurai, strictly prohibiting priests from accepting 'dakshina' in 'aarti plates'.
"It is necessary to state that priests in such temples often receive no formal salary from the State and rely entirely on 'Dakshina'; the State's administrative order directly threatened them with starvation. Although withdrawn due to public outrage, the incident highlights the State's arbitrary power over the survival of the priests. This is also a bitter truth that States are controlling lakhs of temples but not a single mosque or church," the PIL claimed.
The petition, alternatively, sought direction to the Centre and states to take appropriate steps for the welfare of priests, sevadars and other temple staff in the spirit of the Allahabad High Court's earlier judgments.
