SA bowlers restrict India to paltry 124/6 on a bouncy pitch in second T20I
Gqeberha, Nov 10: Indian top-order suffered a collective meltdown against disciplined South African bowlers on a bouncy pitch, managing a way below par 124 for six in the second T20I here on Sunday.
SA skipper Aiden Markram had little hesitation in selecting to bowl once he won the toss, and the bowlers vindicated his call with a stellar effort.
The Proteas bowlers hit the back of length line and the natural bounce on the pitch did the rest. Abhishek Sharma’s dismissal was an example for this.
The left-hander’s underwhelming outings in T20Is continued as his miscued pull off a climbing delivery from Gerald Coetzee ended in the hands of Marco Jansen, who made the first strike dismissing Sanju Samson (0, 3b).
Samson, who had become the first Indian batsman to score back-to-back T20I hundreds, gave himself space to heave Jansen over mid-off, but the opener paid a heavy price for needless pre-meditation to get bowled.
Jansen started off with a wicket maiden and the rest of the SA bowlers hardly offered any freebies for Indian batters to shake off the pressure.
Skipper Suryakumar Yadav, who shuffled across a tad too much, missed a fuller delivery from Andile Simelane to get trapped in front of the stumps, and it was the pacer’s maiden international wicket.
India ended the Power Play segment on a poor 34 for three.
Axar Patel (27, 21b), who was moved up the order played a couple of delectable shots including a punch through the covers off Keshav Maharaj for a four, was India’s most assured batter on the night.
But the left-hander backed up a bit too far as Hardik Pandya’s straight drive took a deflection off spinner Peter Nqabayomzi’s hand before rattling the stumps. Axar did not even wait for the review to walk away from the field.
In the interim, India went through a boundary-less period between the 10th and 16th over, which was ended when Arshdeep Singh mowed leg-spinner Peter for a six.
Even an accomplished hitter like Hardik Pandya (39, 45 balls), who found some late steam, had to wait till his 28th delivery to find a boundary, underscoring India's struggles on the night.
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.
Supreme Court condemns 'bulldozer justice,' says executive cannot replace judiciary
Issues guidelines against demolition of properties over criminal allegations
New Delhi: In a significant judgement on Wednesday, 13 November, the Supreme Court emphasised that properties cannot be demolished solely based on criminal accusations or convictions. The Court asserted that such actions contravene the rule of law and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers, as only the judiciary has the authority to determine a person's guilt.
"The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. If the executive demolishes the property of the person merely on the basis of accusation, it will strike at the rule of law. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building reminds one of lawlessness, where might was right. Such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place in a constitutional democracy. Our constitutional ethos do not permit such a course of action," the Court stated.
The judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, came in response to a series of petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, seeking to halt the use of demolitions as a punitive measure against those accused of crimes. The Court directed that public officials who engage in such actions be held accountable.
"Public officials who take the law into their own hands and act in a high-handed manner must be held accountable," the Court observed, underlining the importance of respecting due process.
Further, the Court noted that demolitions often impose "collective punishment" on the families of the accused or convicted, and therefore outlined specific guidelines to prevent misuse of such actions. Key directives included:
Authorities must issue a show-cause notice before proceeding with demolitions, giving owners at least 15 days to respond.
Property owners should be notified via registered post, and the notice must detail the nature of the unauthorised construction and grounds for demolition.
The designated authority must allow for a personal hearing, with proceedings duly recorded.
Demolition actions should be videographed, with reports sent to the Municipal Commissioner.
Even after issuing a demolition order, affected parties should be given time to challenge it legally. In cases where individuals do not wish to contest, adequate time must be allowed for vacating the premises.
The Court highlighted the adverse impact of such demolitions on vulnerable groups, observing, "It is not a happy sight to see women, children, and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period."
However, the Court clarified that these guidelines would not apply to cases of unauthorised structures on public land, such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies, or where a Court order for demolition exists.
This judgement builds upon previous stays on demolitions, including an interim order on 17 September, which prohibited demolitions across the country without Court permission except in cases of public encroachments.
