Prithvi Shaw fails dope test, banned for eight months
New Delhi, Jul 30: Talented India opener Prithvi Shaw was on Tuesday banned from all forms of cricket for a period of eight months after failing a dope test, the BCCI said.
A BCCI release said Shaw had "inadvertently ingested a prohibited substance, which can be commonly found in cough syrups".
Shaw's suspension is retrospective in nature, starting from March 16 and ending on November 15.
Apart from Shaw, two other cricketers Akshay Dullarwar and Divya Gajraj were also suspended for the same offence.
Shaw had provided a urine sample as part of the BCCI's anti-doping testing programme during the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy on February 22, 2019 in Indore. His sample was subsequently tested and found to contain terbutaline.
"Terbutaline, a specified substance, is prohibited both In and Out of Competition in the WADA Prohibited List of Substances," the BCCI release stated.
"Prithvi Shaw registered with Mumbai Cricket Association, has been suspended for doping violation," the BCCI said.
Terbutaline is generally used to treat problems related to breathing and can be consumed if the athlete in question avails a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) certificate in advance, which Shaw didn't avail.
The 19-year-old, who has played two Test matches for India scoring 237 runs with a hundred and a half-century, had earlier pulled out of India A's one day and Test series against West Indies A reportedly due to a hip injury.
The 19-year-old junior World Cup winning skipper had made a mark last year, hitting a hundred on Test debut against the West Indies, but was sent back from the tour of Australia after twisting his ankle during a practice game.
Shaw is currently at the National Cricket Academy undergoing rehabilitation for a reported hip injury, but the BCCI statement is an indicator that he was pulled out of Mumbai Premier League after testing positive.
The BCCI said that Shaw was charged with violating BCCI's Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) article 2.1.
"On 16th July 2019, Shaw was charged with the commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) under the BCCI Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) Article 2.1 and provisionally suspended pending determination of the charge.
"Shaw responded to the charge by admitting the ADRV but asserting that it was inadvertent, being caused by his ingestion of the over the counter cough syrup he had taken for his cough," the release stated.
Shaw explained that he had taken terbutaline inadvertently to treat a respiratory tract infection and not as a performance-enhancing drug.
"Having considered all of the evidence and taken expert external advice, the BCCI has accepted Shaw's explanation of the cause of his ADRV, and on that basis has agreed that a period of ineligibility of eight months should apply, together with disqualification of certain results," the BCCI ruled.
The BCCI then explained why the suspension was back-dated.
"Under BCCI ADR Article 10.10.3, Shaw is entitled to full credit against that period of ineligibility for the provisional suspension that he has been serving since 16th July 2019.
"In addition, because Shaw promptly admitted his ADRV upon being confronted with it by the BCCI, there is discretion under BCCI ADR Article 10.10.2 to back-date the start of the period of Ineligibility to the date of sample collection (22nd February 2019). However, the BCCI ADR Article 10.10.2 also requires Shaw to actually serve one half of the period of ineligibility," BCCI said.
"Therefore, further to BCCI ADR Article 10.10.2, the eight-month period of Ineligibility will be deemed to have started to run on 16th March 2019, so that it will end at midnight on 15th November 2019."
However, the BCCI's rules would allow Shaw to start training from September 15.
Along with Shaw, Vidarbha U-23 player Dullarwar has also been suspended for eight months after he tested positive for Desacetyl Deflazacort, a metabolite of Deflazacort. He was playing a BCCI U-23 one day game.
Rajasthan's U-19 cricketer Gajraj has been suspended for six months after he was found to have taken acetazolamide, a diuretic and masking agent, during a Cooch Behar Trophy game.
— Prithvi Shaw (@PrithviShaw) July 30, 2019
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.
