Selectors should be consistent, Shubman Gill should have been in team: Ganguly
New Delhi: Former India captain Sourav Ganguly on Wednesday questioned the omission of veteran Ajinkya Rahane and young Shubman Gill from the ODI squad for the tour of West Indies, urging the selection committee to be consistent with their policies.
An inconsistent Kedar Jadhav has been retained while Gill, who has been adjudged man-of-the-series in the five List A games in the West Indies, scoring 218 runs.
Ganguly took to Twitter to take a dig at the selectors stating the main agenda should be picking the best possible team and not making people happy.
"Time has come for Indian selectors to pick same players in all formats of the game for rhythm and confidence.. too few are playing in all formats ..great teams had consistent players ..it's not about making all happy but picking the best for the country and be consistent @bcci," Ganguly tweeted.
"Here are many in the squad who can play all formats ..surprised not to see Shubman Gill. Rahane in the one day squad," he added. Gill has already expressed his disappointment at not being picked in the squad for the limited overs series in the Caribbean.
The MSK Prasad-led selection committee picked India's squads for the T20I, ODI and Test squads for the tour of West Indies on Sunday.
Barring left-arm spinner Ravindra Jadeja, Kohli, Rohit Sharma and KL Rahul, no other Indian player features in all 3 formats for the West Indies tour.
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.
'Don't trust anybody before marriage': SC advises caution in pre-marital physical relationship
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday said a boy and a girl before marriage are "total strangers" and they should be cautious while indulging in pre-marital physical relationships.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which was hearing the bail plea of a man accused of rape on a false promise of marriage, questioned the woman why she travelled all the way to Dubai where they indulged in physical relationship.
"It's consensual. We may be old-fashioned but a boy and girl before marriage are total strangers. They should be circumspect in indulging in physical relationships before marriage," the bench observed.
"Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship, we fail to understand how they can be indulging in physical relationship before marriage. Maybe we are old- fashioned but you must be very careful, nobody should believe anybody before marriage," Justice Nagarathna said.
ALSO READ: B'luru Police register FIR against developer, bank official in ₹130 crore housing fraud case
Counsel for the woman said they met on a matrimonial website in 2022 and he allegedly established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage on multiple occasions in Delhi and later in Dubai.
Justice Nagarathna questioned the woman about what was the need for her to travel to Dubai and observed that it appears to be a case of consensual relationship.
"She should not have gone before marriage if she was so strict about it. We will send them to mediation. These are not cases which are to be tried and convicted when there is consensual relationship," she said.
Justice Nagarathna asked the counsel for the man to pay some compensation to her and be done with it.
The bench also asked the woman’s counsel to explore the possibility of settlement and posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday to see the views of both the parties. The woman has claimed in her complaint that on his insistence, she travelled to Dubai where he allegedly established physical relations with her on false pretext of marriage and recorded intimate videos without her consent, threatening to circulate them if she resisted.
The woman said that later she learnt that he had married a second woman in January, 2024 in Punjab.
The Delhi High Court and the trial court had dismissed the bail application of the man.
The high court rejected bail, saying the allegations prima facie indicate that the promise of marriage was false from inception, particularly as the petitioner was already married and had married again on January 19, 2024.
Aggrieved by the high court's order, the man approached the top court for bail in the case.
