Sehwag's Arab attire in Dubai sparks controversy, netizens ask "where is your nationalism now?"
Indian cricketer Virender Sehwag sparked controversy during the International League T20 (ILT20) final, where he adopted an Arab avatar while hosting a show alongside former Pakistan pacer Shoaib Akhtar.
Despite providing insightful commentary on the MI Emirates vs. Dubai Capitals match, Sehwag's unexpected attire drew criticism on social media.
Some users accused Sehwag of hypocrisy, citing his previous emphasis on nationalism and patriotism, particularly aligning with the BJP's agenda.
The cricketer faced backlash for wearing an Arab Sheikh outfit, with users questioning his commitment to Indian identity, especially considering his past suggestion to change the country's name to Bharat.
Critics also expressed disappointment in Sehwag's choice of attire while interacting with a Pakistani player, interpreting it as prioritizing financial gains over nationalistic sentiments.
The incident prompted social media users to question Sehwag's stance on nationalism, accusing him of inconsistency and emphasizing the need for genuine expressions of patriotism.
He has a problem with the word INDIA, he said INDIA stands for oppression, we should use Bharat instead.
— Roshan Rai (@RoshanKrRaii) February 17, 2024
Today, he has become an Arab for money. pic.twitter.com/wTqyK1iDvo
𝓓𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓼𝓵𝓪𝔂
— International League T20 (@ILT20Official) February 17, 2024
When in Dubai, you've gotta do it the Emirati way!#DPWorldILT20 #AllInForCricket #MIEvDC pic.twitter.com/WOlEPIS1MP
🚨 Hypocrisy Exposed
— Amock (@Politics_2022_) February 17, 2024
Virender Sehwag lectures Indians about nationalism & patriotism to propagate BJP's agenda
And he is enjoying commentary with Pakístan cricketer Shoaib Akhtar in UAE, he is wearing outfit of Arab Sheikh
Will the BJP IT Cell rant?#DPWorldILT20FinalOnZee pic.twitter.com/4eKs17tvCe
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.
