Pakistan appoints Misbah-ul-Haq head coach, chief selector
Lahore, Sept 4: Pakistan Wednesday appointed former captain Misbah-ul-Haq as head coach and chief selector in a bid to lift the national team's performance.
The cricket-mad nation failed to reach the semi-finals of the 2019 World Cup in July, prompting the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) not to renew head coach Mickey Arthur's tenure.
Bowling coach Azhar Mahmood and batting coach Grant Flower were also shown the door. The PCB said Misbah will be head coach for three years.
"Former captain Misbah is confirmed as Pakistan men's national team head coach in all three formats on a three-year contract," said a statement.
"In line with the PCB's commitment to ensure transparency, accountability and role clarity at all levels, Misbah was also named as the chairman of selectors with head coaches of the six first-class cricket association sides as his fellow selectors."
Misbah will be Pakistan's 30th head coach -- but it is the first time that the head coach will also be the chief selector, along the lines of the system in New Zealand.
Another former captain, legendary paceman Waqar Younis, was named as bowling coach for three years. He had two previous stints as head coach.
A five-man PCB committee also interviewed former Australian batsman Dean Jones and former Pakistan coach Mohsin Khan before deciding unanimously in Misbah's favour.
Misbah and Younis will start with a three one-day internationals and three Twenty20s at home against Sri Lanka from September 27 to October 9. Pakistan travel to Australia in November for Tests in Brisbane and Adelaide.
Misbah is Pakistan's most successful Test captain with 26 wins in 56 Tests and 11 draws. He played 75 Tests, 162 ODIs and 39 T20Is matches for Pakistan in a career which ended in 2017.
Misbah described the role as challenging.
"I know expectations are high, but I am absolutely ready and up for the task otherwise I would not have thrown my name in the hat for one of the most challenging and coveted roles in Pakistan cricket," he said in a press release.
"We have some of the most talented and exciting cricketers, and I will like to help them train and prepare in such a way that they can play intelligently, smartly and fearlessly.
"I am aware this will require a change in the dressing room culture but if we have to compete consistently at the highest level, we have to embrace these modern day requirements."
Pakistan are seventh in Test rankings, sixth in ODIs but are top ranked in Twenty20s.
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 bars Centre from granting retrospective environmental clearances
New Delhi, May 16 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said the right to live in a pollution free atmosphere was a part of the fundamental right as it struck down Centre’s office memorandum allowing ex post facto or retrospective environmental clearances to projects in violation of norms.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made scathing remarks in its judgement delivered on a plea filed by Vanashakti organisation and said, "The Union Government, as much as individual citizens, has a constitutional obligation to protect the environment.”
The court said it "must come down very heavily" on the Centre's attempt to do "something which is completely prohibited under the law".
It added, "Cleverly, the words ex post facto have not been used, but without using those words, there is a provision to effectively grant ex post facto EC. The 2021 OM has been issued in violation of the decisions of this court…."
The bench, therefore, declared the 2021 office memorandum (OM) and related circulars “arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006".
The Centre, as a result, was restrained from issuing directions for grant of ex post facto clearances in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification.
“Under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to live in a pollution free environment is guaranteed. In fact, the 1986 Act has been enacted to give effect to this fundamental right… Therefore, even the Central Government has a duty to protect and improve the natural environment,” it said.
The court ruled these measures unlawfully permitted the regularisation of projects that had violated environmental laws.
“This court in several decisions has held that the right to live in a pollution free atmosphere is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Oka, writing for the bench, said.
Referring to a March 14, 2017 a notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the bench said it was made applicable to projects or activities that have started the work on site, expanded production beyond the limit of EC, or changed the production mix without obtaining EC.
“There is already a concluded finding of this court that the concept of ex post facto or retrospective EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence and the EIA notification,” it added.
The violation of the condition of obtaining prior EC must be dealt with heavy hands, it said.
“In environmental matters, the courts must take a very strict view of the violations of the laws relating to the environment. It is the duty of the Constitutional courts to do so,” it said.
The bench illustrated the drastic consequences of large-scale environmental degradation on human lives in Delhi and several other cities.
“At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing,” it said.
The bench said the OM was violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment and it also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Trashing the OM, the bench asked, “Can there be development at the cost of the environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development.”
The top court further opined courts should come down heavily on such attempts.
"As stated earlier, the OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment,” it noted.
Apart from the violation of Article 21, such an action was stated to be in complete violation of Article 14 (right to equality) aside from being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
The bench, however, said the ex post facto environmental clearances granted in certain cases both under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, at the present stage, wouldn't be disturbed.
