Latest news with #SupremeCourt-approved
Mint
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Mint
Roger Binny disqualified as BCCI chief after turning 70, but may not step down just yet. Here's why
BCCI President Roger Binny turned 70 on 19 July, leading to uncertainty over whether the former India cricketer can continue in his role given that the BCCI constitution does not support it. The Supreme Court-approved BCCI constitution stipulates that any office-bearer who turns 70 is disqualified from holding office. Multiple reports then suggested that BCCI Vice-President Rajeev Shukla could be appointed interim president. However, a new report by Hindustan Times, citing sources, states that Binny could continue in a caretaker capacity as BCCI President without signing any official documents. Moreover, the National Sports Bill, which is slated to be introduced in Parliament during the ongoing Monsoon Session, could further complicate matters. While the BCCI does not function on government grants, the body is a part of the National Sports Federation, which could bring it under the bill's provisions. The new bill includes a provision to increase the upper age limit for office-bearers of national sports federations from 70 to 75. It states that any individual between the ages of 70 and 75 can contest elections and seek nominations, provided it complies with international charters and the concerned body's bye-laws do not prevent it. If the bill eventually becomes law, it could potentially allow Binny to retain his position as BCCI President, given that there is no age cap in ICC statutes. As per a recent PTI report, Binny is expected to get in touch with BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia and the board's legal department to ascertain the way forward. The Indian cricket board has not issued an official statement on the matter. Top BCCI officials are currently returning from Singapore after attending the ICC Annual Conference. The PTI report states that the BCCI is currently discussing whether to install Shukla as president for two months or wait for the Sports Bill to come into effect.
India.com
13 hours ago
- Politics
- India.com
Roger Binny's BCCI Presidency In Jeopardy? Age Cap Clash Sparks Leadership Tug-Of-War
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) finds itself at the center of a constitutional conundrum following President Roger Binny's 70th birthday on July 19. According to the Supreme Court-approved BCCI constitution, no office-bearer is allowed to continue once they hit the age of 70. By that rule, Binny stands disqualified. Vice-President Rajeev Shukla, the designated successor under the current guidelines, is reportedly in a holding pattern, awaiting clarity from the BCCI's top brass—many of whom were attending the ICC Annual Conference in Singapore until recently. Is Binny Disqualified or in a Holding Pattern? While the constitution appears clear-cut, insiders close to Binny suggest that he might be allowed to continue informally until the BCCI's Annual General Meeting (AGM) in September. Since no official documents need to be signed until then, he could theoretically serve in a caretaker role. This ambiguity has fueled widespread speculation, with no official word yet from the BCCI itself. Adding another layer of intrigue is the fact that Binny is currently vacationing on an island in Thailand, celebrating his milestone birthday with family. Sources say he will hold consultations with BCCI Secretary Devajit Saikia and the legal team upon his return. National Sports Bill Could Change the Game Enter the National Sports Governance Bill, which could be the lifeline Binny needs. Set to be tabled in the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament by Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, the bill proposes raising the age limit for office-bearers in national sports federations from 70 to 75. Crucially, it is expected to override individual federation constitutions—including that of the BCCI. Under this new legislation, Binny's age would no longer be a disqualifying factor. Moreover, the bill allows anyone elected at age 69 years and 364 days or younger to complete their full term even if they cross the threshold during their tenure. Though Binny turned 70 just days ago, the timing of this legislation could potentially grant him a fresh three-year term—if it passes before any leadership change is formalized. What Happens Now? Leadership Scenarios and Sentiment The BCCI's internal discussions are reportedly weighing two immediate options: Appoint Rajeev Shukla as interim president until the AGM in September. Wait for the Sports Bill to be passed and re-validate Binny's continuation. There's also an emotional and symbolic factor at play. A growing sentiment within the BCCI hierarchy suggests the role of president should remain with a former India cricketer. Both Sourav Ganguly and Roger Binny fit that mold, and this could heavily influence future selections. However, with no public comment from Binny or the BCCI as yet, speculation continues to mount. Expert Take: Why This Matters for Indian Cricket This isn't just a procedural hiccup—it's a defining moment for Indian cricket governance. Roger Binny, a 1983 World Cup-winning hero and a respected administrator, brought continuity and calm during his tenure. A premature end to his presidency could disrupt ongoing strategic planning, especially with the Champions Trophy and the next ICC cycle on the horizon. At the same time, the looming Sports Bill may herald a shift in how sports administration is governed in India, bringing uniformity and modernity to outdated federation laws.
Time of India
16-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Lenders approve Uganda-based INSCO's ₹2,257-crore plan for Hindusthan Glass
(You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A committee of creditors who include State Bank of India , Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company and DBS Bank has cleared Uganda-based Independent Sugar Corp's revised resolution plan for bankrupt Hindusthan National Glass HNG ).Under the Supreme Court-approved proposal, Independent Sugar Corp (INSCO) has improved its initial offer by ₹356 crore to ₹2,257 crore. The committee cleared it with 96.16% of votes in favour. INSCO has agreed to pay ₹1,901.5 crore upfront through a mix of equity, quasi-equity and debt. An additional deferred payment of ₹356.3 crore will be made to secured financial creditors over three years, funded from HNG's future cash financial creditors will get ₹2,207 crore, or 66.18% of their admitted claims of ₹3,335 crore. The ₹2,257 crore proposal also covers payment to operational creditors like employees. Letters of support from debt funds for both the upfront payment and working capital needs have been submitted as part of the plan. INSCO has proposed a strategy involving a ₹1,000 crore capital expenditure to turn around HNG's operations. The plan focuses on rebuilding furnaces and upgrading equipment to revive the largest container glass manufacturer.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.'
