Samit Dravid in India U19 squad to face Australia in multi-format series
New Delhi (PTI): Samit Dravid, son of former India captain and head coach Rahul Dravid, was on Saturday drafted into the India under-19 squad for the upcoming multi-format series against Australia.
The three-match one-day series will be held in Puducherry on September 21, 23 and 26, and India will be led by Uttar Pradesh's Mohammad Amaan.
The series will then roll to Chennai for two four-day matches beginning on September 30 and October 7. The India squad for this leg of the tour will be captained by Soham Patwardhan of Madhya Pradesh.
Samit, a pace-bowling all-rounder, is currently playing for Mysore Warriors in the ongoing KSCA Maharaja T20 trophy in Bengaluru.
However, his outings so far have been underwhelming with the bat – 82 runs from seven innings with a highest of 33, and he is yet to bowl in the tournament.
But earlier this year, Samit had a productive time in the Cooch Behar Trophy, playing an important role in Karnataka's maiden title triumph in the event.
The 18-year-old made 362 runs from eight matches and his 98 against Jammu and Kashmir stood out for its quality and fluency.
Samit also had a memorable tournament with the ball, where he claimed 16 scalps in eight matches, including two in the final against Mumbai.
India U19 squad for one-day series: Rudra Patel, Sahil Parakh, Kartikeya KP, Mohd Amaan (Captain), Kiran Chormale, Abhigyan Kundu (wk), Harvansh Singh Pangalia (WK), Samit Dravid, Yudhajit Guha, Samarth N, Nikhil Kumar, Chetan Sharma, Hardik Raj, Rohit Rajawat, Mohd Enaan.
India U19 squad for four-day series: Vaibhav Suryavanshi, Nitya Pandya, Vihan Malhotra, Soham Patwardhan (Captain), Kartikeya KP, Samit Dravid, Abhigyan Kundu (WK), Harvansh Singh Pangalia (WK), Chetan Sharma, Samarth N, Aditya Rawat, Nikhil Kumar, Anmoljeet Singh, Aditya Singh, Mohd Enaan.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
