Nishan Velupillay in the field. The first Worldcupper with #Tamil heritage!

India is not getting past the Asian Cup (forget about World Cup) because India needed a Jagmohan Dalmiya in Football. What India got now is a Kalyan Chaubey who can't even conduct and telecast properly a full fledged Super League.

5 IAF personnel lost their lives in the An-32 Crash at Jorhat, Assam. One pilot, one navigator, one load master, two loaders There is one survivor from the crash. The co-pilot survived the impact and subsequent fire, the co-pilot was rescued from the wreckage by emergency teams.

India’s judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution. It protects: *Fundamental rights *Federal balance *Free elections *Civil liberties Any erosion of independence directly affects: *Dissent *Media freedom *Minority rights *Democratic checks and balances The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant travelled to the United Kingdom in early June 2026 for a series of academic and legal events. His engagements included: A lecture at Birkbeck, University of London, on Artificial Intelligence and International Law Participation in an international conference on Indo‑UK commercial arbitration at Church House, Westminster During one of these events, an audience member attempted to question him about “growing hostility to dissent in India.” The moderator cut off the question, leading to a disruption and a viral video. The Indian High Commission in London condemned the incident as “indecorous audience behaviour.” India’s judiciary enjoys strong constitutional protections, but faces growing concerns about executive influence, opaque appointments, and weakening institutional autonomy. Judicial independence has two dimensions: A. Institutional independence B. Individual independence Recent years have seen a sharp rise in public and academic scrutiny of judicial independence. PM Modi attending Ganesh Puja at CJI Chandrachud’s residence (2024) sparked debate on proximity between judiciary and executive. Transfers of “uncomfortable” judges, without explanation raised concerns about punitive action. The CJI UK visit itself was routine , lectures, conferences, academic events, but the viral disruption at the London lecture, combined with the badminton controversy, turned it into a political storm. Note : The London event was a private side‑event. How much exchequer money was spent? No publicly available source in the search results provides figures on: *The cost of the CJI’s UK visit *Whether the trip was funded by the Indian exchequer *Any breakdown of expenses The controversial badminton match in London (June 2026) involved: *Two judges from the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court *Around 100 lawyers *Organiser - Abantika Deka The London badminton event became politically controversial. Social media users began circulating unrelated images to imply ministers were involved. Who actually went to England and played badminton? Only two Indian judges (apart from the CJI) are confirmed to have travelled to London and played badminton at the controversial event , both from the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. No Union minister, including the Law Minister, travelled for the badminton event. Around 100 lawyers joined them. These included Indian and UK lawyers attending the side event. Many were also present at the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) conference in Westminster. It was a private, ticketed event (₹10,000 entry fee).

Then he should be India's finance minister first.

পিছনের স্বামী বিবেকানন্দের ছবি তে লেখা "Arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached"

Not good Inflation to go up

And they have destroyed the EVMs.

In India, there are two landmark 5-judge Constitution Bench rulings by the Supreme Court that define and govern the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule): the foundational 1992 ruling in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and the 2023 ruling in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary (the Maharashtra political crisis) A breakdown of what these pivotal 5-judge benches ruled outlines how defection is legally managed: 1. The Foundational Ruling: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) This 5-judge bench established the constitutional validity of the Anti-Defection Law but stripped the Speaker of absolute immunity. The bench ruled (3:2 majority) that the law is constitutional and necessary to curb "unprincipled and unethical political defections". The court struck down Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule, which originally barred courts from intervening. It ruled that when deciding defection cases, the Speaker acts as a tribunal, meaning their final decision is fully subject to judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court. 2. The Modern Clarification: Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary (2023) Arising from the Shiv Sena party split in Maharashtra, this unanimous 5-judge bench plugged loopholes regarding how a "split" is recognized. The bench ruled that rebel legislators cannot simply claim they are the "real party" or a separate faction to evade the law. Even if a faction achieves a 2/3rd majority of the legislative party, their only option to avoid disqualification is to merge with another existing political party. The court clarified that the power to issue a "whip" (voting directive) belongs to the overarching political party leadership, not the legislative faction inside the assembly house. The Governor cannot use internal party dissent to call for a floor test, and the Speaker must be the authority to decide who represents the actual political party based on its constitution. 3. Timeline of Disqualification (Rajendra Singh Rana Case, 2007) In another notable 5-judge bench decision, the court ruled that an MLA stands disqualified the exact moment the act of defection is committed, not from the date the Speaker finally passes the order.