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.
Cow has unique status, its slaughter can have repercussions on peace: Punjab and Haryana HC
Chandigarh (PTI): The cow is a pious animal and "certain acts" can severely impact peace when they offend beliefs of a "significant population group", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said while dismissing the anticipatory bail given to a Nuh resident accused of transporting cows for slaughter.
Asif was booked along with two others in April this year under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, for allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan for slaughter.
"The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society," Justice Sandeep Moudgil said in an order earlier this month. It was made public on Monday.
"This court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group," the court said.
The cow is not only a pious animal but also an integral part of India's agrarian economy, the judge said.
According to the state counsel, the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence of cow slaughter. Therefore, his custodial interrogation was imperative for a fair and effective investigation, he submitted.
The court said the Constitution does not merely protect rights in abstraction but seeks to build a just, compassionate, and cohesive society.
"Article 51A(g) Constitution of India enjoins every citizen to show compassion to all living creatures. It is in this context that the alleged act of cow slaughter committed repeatedly, deliberately, and provocatively strikes at the core of constitutional morality and social order," said the order.
The court observed that the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large.
'It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences.
"In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected," said the court order.
Anticipatory bail, it said, is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest, not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.
Protection of pre-arrest bail should not be granted when the applicant has been shown to be a habitual offender or where his custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, it said.
The court also cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2005 State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case that upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitory laws and recognised the constitutional directive under Article 48 of the Constitution as reflecting the moral and economic ethos of society.
While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Moudgil also observed that the court is conscious of the need to safeguard individual liberty.
"But where such liberty is demonstrably misused, and where the petitioner's conduct is indicative of recidivism, the law must respond with firmness. The right to bail is not to be confused with the right to impunity," according to the order.
"Considering the serious nature of the allegations involving offences of moral turpitude, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a likelihood of reoffending, this court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail," it said.
